tool_list_drafts

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose ordering (newest first) plus the response envelope {ok, drafts, count} and per-draft fields. It doesn't say what happens on an empty folder or a non-ok response, but the core behavioral picture is present.

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return details follow. There is mild duplication between the per-draft field list and the 'Returns: dict with {ok, drafts, count}' block, but nothing is wasteful.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, sort order, and returned content well enough to invoke and interpret it. Edge-case/error behavior is the only meaningful omission.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.

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 all draft blog posts in the local drafts folder') with scope ('newest first'), which cleanly separates it from the single-item sibling tool_read_draft. An agent knows exactly what it gets back without opening a schema.

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?

'Use this to see what's ready to publish' gives a clear situational cue but no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., read_draft for a single post). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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