drafts_list

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

The description only mentions it's an undocumented session endpoint, hinting at internal use. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, pagination behavior, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It is not verbose, but could be structured with additional lines for clarity. However, it remains efficient without wasted words.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks high-level context such as session scope, pagination details, or error conditions. For a 2-parameter tool with output schema, it is barely adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters (limit, is_active) already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 states the tool lists unsent message drafts, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like drafts_create or drafts_delete by focusing on listing. The phrase 'undocumented session endpoint' adds specific context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like drafts_create or other list tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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