list_remote_drafts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only operation (listing). The description adds valuable context about the specific IMAP folder source and the type of drafts (unsynced), which goes beyond the annotation's bare safety hint.

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 concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, prerequisite. No redundant words. Information is front-loaded with the action and scope in the first sentence.

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?

For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains purpose and usage well, but does not mention what fields the returned draft messages contain (e.g., subject, id, date). Since there is no output schema, this omission leaves the agent slightly underinformed about the response structure.

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% with both parameters (limit, offset) fully documented with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no further param details, but the schema already handles that adequately.

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 specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'draft messages', and a specific scope ('stored in the Proton Drafts IMAP folder on the server'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_drafts' by contrasting local vs. server drafts, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use ('see drafts created via Proton webmail or mobile app that have not been synced locally') and when not to ('Prefer list_drafts to see drafts managed by this server'). It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires an active IMAP connection'), providing clear decision support.

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