memory_drafts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds only that it returns a JSON string, which is minimal. No disclosure of optional behavior, rate limits, or other traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are clearly formatted with no wasted 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?

While the tool is simple (list with two optional filters), the description does not cover pagination, ordering, or the return format beyond 'JSON string'. The output schema exists but is not referenced. The missing parameter documentation reduces completeness.

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 bears full responsibility. It mentions the 'status' parameter with possible values but omits 'branch_id' entirely. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 current memory drafts' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_memories' which lists all memories, and from 'draft_diff', 'merge_draft', etc., which involve actions on drafts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use, nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'list_memories' or 'draft_memory'.

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