list_remote_drafts

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses the source (server IMAP folder), purpose (non-synced drafts), and prerequisite (active IMAP connection). It doesn't mention side effects, but as a read operation, this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy. First sentence defines core functionality, subsequent sentences provide usage context and prerequisites. All sentences add value.

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?

Simple tool with two parameters and no output schema. Description covers source, use case, and prerequisite. Minor gap: doesn't mention possible empty response or error conditions, but these are typical for list operations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description does not add meaning beyond the schema for 'limit' and 'offset', which are standard pagination parameters.

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 states the verb 'List', the resource 'draft messages', and the specific location 'Proton Drafts IMAP folder on the server'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_drafts' by specifying the server-side source.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('drafts created via Proton webmail or mobile app that have not been synced locally'), when to prefer an alternative ('Prefer list_drafts'), and a prerequisite ('Requires an active IMAP connection').

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