list_drafts

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 states the core action and tenant scope, but fails to disclose important behaviors such as pagination, ordering, whether full message content is returned, or the read-only nature of the operation beyond the obvious 'list' keyword.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant information, fluff, or repetition of the tool name, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but missing some context. It states the tenant scope, which is useful, but it does not mention what fields are returned, whether drafts are sorted, or if pagination is supported. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would enhance 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema does not describe any, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 'List drafts for this tenant' uses a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('drafts'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_draft and send_draft by specifying the read-only listing operation, which is unique among them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The only hint is the implicit 'list' verb, but no explicit usage context is given.

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