List Inbox Drafts

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, but the description adds meaningful operational context: what a draft is, how standalone vs reply drafts differ, what fields are returned, and how pagination works. This is a strong complement to the annotation set.

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 sectioned and front-loaded: purpose, exclusions, return shape, and usage guidance appear in a logical order. Each sentence earns its place by either distinguishing siblings, clarifying return data, or explaining pagination.

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 paginated list endpoint with no output schema and complete input schema coverage, the description is complete: it names the resource, lists returned fields, explains draft types, provides pagination mechanics, and routes to related tools. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents inboxId, after, before, and limit. The description adds workflow meaning by explaining where the inbox ID comes from and how to pass draft IDs for forward/backward paging, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list drafts in one Resend inbox, with each draft's ID. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get-inbox-draft, send-inbox-draft, get-inbox-thread, and list-emails, so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('User asks what drafts an inbox holds, or you need a draft ID') and clear exclusions for reading, sending, thread messages, and sent emails. It also explains the downstream workflow by naming the tools that consume the returned draft ID.

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