list_draft_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and gives no information about read-only guarantees, pagination, ordering, permissions, or what happens if no draft notes exist.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though a little more context about related tools would have made it stronger.

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?

The operation is simple and both parameters are fully described in the schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no note about pagination or how draft notes compare to regular MR notes, the context is only partially complete.

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 100%, so both project_id and merge_request_iid are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('draft notes for a merge request'), so the operation is identifiable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_draft_note or get_merge_request_notes, so it stops short of a top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many note-related siblings, such as get_draft_note, get_merge_request_notes, or publish_draft_note. The agent must infer the intended use solely from the name and one-line description.

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