list_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. It thoroughly discloses key behavioral traits: soft-deleted rows are hidden by default, pagination via cursor and nextCursor, total count before pagination, and role-based visibility (employees see own drafts, owners/reviewers see all). This is extensive and valuable.

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?

While the description is fairly long, every sentence provides necessary information: scope, example triggers, return shape with pagination details, hidden deleted status, and access control. There is no fluff or repetition, and it is logically structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure ({ drafts, nextCursor, total }) and pagination behavior. It also covers optional filters, default limit, deleted row handling, and role-based visibility, making it complete for a list tool with 7 optional parameters.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating 'All filters are optional and AND together' and clarifying that status='deleted' is hidden by default, which is not in the schema. It also explains cursor usage for pagination, reinforcing the schema's description.

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 'List drafts in the user's workspace' with a specific verb and resource, and gives concrete example user queries. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_draft by focusing on listing multiple drafts with filtering and pagination.

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 explicitly says 'Use this whenever the user asks...' with several concrete trigger phrases, providing strong usage guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context and scope make those clear.

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