my_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, whether it is paginated, or any side effects. The description is far too minimal to inform an agent of the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and front-loads a vague concept rather than a clear action. It is concise but not well-formed for usability.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description fails to convey the tool's core purpose or behavior. It does not clarify what 'prepared' means, what 'not yet confirmed' refers to, or how the output is structured. For a tool with no parameters, the description should clearly define the resource and operation, which it does not.

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 and an empty schema, so there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already conveys. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but given the absence of parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; there is no missing parameter information.

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 is a noun phrase ('Everything this caller has prepared and not yet confirmed') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It does not specify the action (e.g., 'list', 'retrieve') or the exact type of drafts (tickets, invoices, etc.). It is vague and requires inference from 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or related sibling tools like customer_tickets or prepare_invoice.

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