outlook_list_drafts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read-only operation. The description adds the behavior of cursor pagination, which is useful implementation detail beyond the annotation.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and to the point.

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?

While the basic purpose is clear, the description does not mention ordering, default count, how to obtain the next page, or any additional behavior. Combined with the lack of parameter details, the context is somewhat incomplete for an agent to use it effectively without additional inference.

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 lacks descriptions for count and cursor, and the description only mentions 'cursor pagination' without explaining how the parameters work. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter semantics, especially since schema coverage is 0%.

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 lists messages in the Drafts folder, which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like outlook_list_inbox and outlook_list_folders by specifying the Drafts folder.

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 indicates the purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not guidance is provided, though the tool name and context give some implicit clues.

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