List drafts in progress

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive list operation. The description adds useful context beyond that: returned fields, 24-hour retention of cancelled/paused/failed turns, required scopes, and full-content data sensitivity.

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 front-loaded and generally efficient, with the core behavior stated first. It includes some operational boilerplate, such as the endpoint and idempotency note, but it remains readable and task-relevant.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It still covers scope requirements, data sensitivity, retention behavior, and workspace override semantics, making it complete for this tool.

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 both workspaceId and workspaceSlug are already documented. The description adds meaning by explaining that either can be used to override the default workspace configured by the environment.

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 and resource: list inbound turns Luca is still writing a reply for. It also names the returned content (state, message preview, restarts left), which clearly differentiates it from a general review-queue listing.

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?

It implies when to use the tool by describing the drafting queue, and it notes that cancelled, paused, and failed turns remain for 24 hours. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings such as luca_review_queue_list or the drafting cancel/retry/dismiss tools.

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