List note.com drafts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it names the exact endpoint, the default status=draft and without_magazines=true, and the output modes (summary vs. full). However, it does not explain the response structure, pagination behavior beyond defaults, or the purpose of includeBody, leaving behavioral transparency moderate.

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 compact: two sentences that convey the core purpose, endpoint, and output defaults. Every element is relevant, and the structure front-loads the key action and resource before diving into technical details. No fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity and absent output schema/annotations, the description covers the main action and default behavior. However, it omits the meaning of includeBody, does not describe what the summary vs. full output contains, and does not mention pagination handling or how many drafts are returned. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to predict all behaviors without extra context.

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 explains the 'fields' parameter (summary vs. full) and reveals default values for page and limit via the endpoint URL. However, the 'includeBody' parameter is completely unexplained, and page/limit semantics are only implied by their position in the URL, not explicitly defined.

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 drafts for the authenticated note.com account, using a specific HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like note_list_my_notes by explicitly mentioning the status=draft parameter. The verb 'lists' and resource 'drafts' are specific and unambiguous.

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 makes it clear this tool is for listing drafts, which is an implied use case. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this instead of note_get_draft or note_list_my_notes, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative tool recommendations. Usage is inferred from the name and description rather than explicitly specified.

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