list_designs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful scope details: it lists only drafts stored on this server, includes specific draft categories, and excludes game-folder vehicles. It does not describe return structure, but an output schema exists.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then adds routing guidance and the alternative tool. The parenthetical tool references are dense but each earns its place by clarifying draft categories.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is listed, how names are used, and which sibling tool handles game-folder vehicles.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions `design` as a name to pass to other tools, which gives useful downstream context but is not a parameter of this tool.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list the names of drafts stored on the server. It also distinguishes the categories of drafts and explicitly separates server drafts from vehicles in the game's folder, which is handled by list_game_vehicles.

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?

It explains how to use the returned names: pass a name as `design` to other tools or to load_design to read it. It also names the alternative tool for game-folder vehicles, so the agent knows when not to use this tool.

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