list_drafts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the specific behavioral constraint that it only lists locally saved drafts and not server drafts, which is useful beyond the annotation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the description efficiently uses words to convey scope and alternatives.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, returned fields, scope, usage guidelines, and alternatives. It is 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?

The only parameter (includeSent) is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about this parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'locally saved drafts', and the fields returned (status, subject, timestamps). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_remote_drafts and get_draft, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit instructions on when to use ('review in-progress or unsent messages'), when not to use (for server-only drafts), and which alternative to use (list_remote_drafts, get_draft) are provided.

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