outlook_list_drafts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions cursor pagination, which is a key behavior, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe. For a list tool, this is minimally acceptable.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and pagination behavior. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could provide more parameter details or notes on pagination flow. It meets the minimum but does not fully support an agent unfamiliar with cursor pagination.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely alludes to pagination without explaining how 'count' and 'cursor' are used or their formats. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (Drafts folder), with specific mention of cursor pagination. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like outlook_list_inbox or outlook_search_mail by specifying the 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 implies usage for listing drafts but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Context from sibling tools is not leveraged.

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