List drafts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation's read-only nature via the verb 'List' and specifies scope ('in the outbox') and returned data ('status and publish results'). However, it does not mention whether the operation requires special permissions, whether pagination exists, or how many drafts are returned, leaving some uncertainty.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must communicate return value expectations. It mentions 'status and publish results', which gives a general sense but lacks details on the full set of fields or any ordering/limitations. Given the tool's simplicity and sibling context (e.g., create_thread_draft), the description could clarify whether thread drafts are included, but it explicitly limits to post drafts.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% description coverage. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 a specific action 'List' and a specific resource 'post drafts in the outbox', and further specifies the information returned ('status and publish results'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_post_draft and publish_post by being the listing counterpart, and there is no other listing sibling for drafts.

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 implies usage by indicating what it does, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. However, the context is clear: this is the tool to retrieve draft status and publish outcomes. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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