list_drafts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a sorted list, which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's read-only (though implied by 'list'). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation and constraints.

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 well-structured and concise, with three clear sentences: the purpose, parameter explanation, and return behavior. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter info into the first sentence, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basics but lacks behavioral details like pagination or error handling. With no annotations, it should do more to guide usage, but the output schema reduces the burden slightly.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'tag: Optional tag to filter by'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage and only defines 'tag' as an optional string/null. Since there's only one parameter and the description explains it well, the score is high, compensating for the low schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List all content drafts.' This specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('content drafts'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_draft' (which retrieves a single draft) or 'create_draft' (which creates one), so it doesn't reach the highest 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an optional tag filter but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or compare it to other list/retrieval tools like 'get_draft' or 'list_scheduled_posts'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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