list_message_drafts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, though 'List' implies it. It mentions 'Page number (starts at 0)' and 'Results per page,' which hints at pagination behavior, but lacks details on response format, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to fully disclose 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 appropriately sized, with the main purpose stated in a single opening sentence followed by a clean parameter list. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy, making it well-structured and easy to scan.

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 is a simple list operation with three optional parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the parameters and basic purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance and any caveats, which would make it more complete for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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 schema provides only parameter titles and defaults with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining each parameter meaningfully: 'Comma-separated recipient filter' clarifies the format, 'Page number (starts at 0)' adds the zero-based indexing detail, and 'Results per page' defines per_page. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'List draft messages in Nimble CRM.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_message_draft, though the difference is self-evident from the names.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. The only content beyond the primary sentence is the parameter list, which offers no contextual usage advice.

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