drafts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but the word 'List' and the absence of any input parameters make the read-only, non-destructive nature reasonably evident. It still says nothing about ordering, result limits, or whether drafts from all conversations are included, which leaves meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single four-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call it. It nonetheless omits ordering/limit behavior and any hint of what a draft record contains, which an agent would need to use the results meaningfully.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation is unfiltered ('all').

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved drafts'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'draft' (singular), which an agent could easily confuse with this one, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as the singular 'draft' sibling. The agent must infer that this is the retrieval counterpart to draft creation/editing.

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