List Drafts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying that it returns draft keys, sequences, and preview content, and that it's for the current user, which clarifies scope beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word contributes to clarity and utility, with no wasted information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the user scope and return data, but could slightly improve by mentioning pagination behavior (implied by 'offset') or error cases. However, it's sufficient for effective use.

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 the single parameter 'offset' well-documented in the schema (pagination offset with default and range). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 action ('List all drafts'), specifies the resource ('for the current user'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on drafts rather than topics, posts, or other resources. It explicitly mentions the return data (draft keys, sequences, preview content), making the purpose specific and well-defined.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating 'Use this to find existing drafts before updating them,' which indicates when to use this tool (for listing drafts) and implies an alternative (updating drafts, likely via a sibling tool like discourse_get_draft). This helps the agent differentiate it from other list tools like discourse_list_user_posts.

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