draft_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses that entries can be 'marked' when their base revision changed, i.e. staleness detection — but it never explains how the marking is represented or whether the list is paginated or scoped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the primary action ('List saved edit proposals') is front-loaded. It is slightly dense because the second clause ('mark ones whose base revision changed') compresses a non-obvious behavior into passing wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Low-complexity, single-param, read-only tool with no output schema, so little needs to be said. Still, the ambiguous term 'mark' is the one behavioral detail that matters and no output schema exists to disambiguate it, so the definition is adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one parameter (projectDir) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'List saved edit proposals', plus a stated side-effect of flagging proposals whose base revision changed. It implicitly distinguishes itself from draft_stage/draft_apply (mutation siblings) by being a list, but never names draft_inspect or explains how it differs from inspecting a single draft.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternatives. Usage is only implied by the concept of saved proposals and staleness marking, leaving the agent to infer that this is the pre-apply triage step rather than a per-draft inspection call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.