list_drafts

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

无 annotations，描述承担了行为披露责任。它补充了分页行为（offset/count 默认值、count 上限 20）以及返回结构（total/offset/items 及字段），足以让代理理解这是只读查询并预知响应。但未说明排序、错误处理或鉴权等边界情况。

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?

描述采用两段式结构：先给出返回格式，再列出参数说明。没有冗余内容，信息密度高且易于扫描。

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?

对于只有两个可选参数的列表查询工具，描述覆盖了调用所需的核心信息：分页参数、默认值、上限和返回结构。虽然未涉及排序或错误处理，但结合输出 schema 已足以支持正确调用。

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?

输入 schema 的参数没有描述，覆盖率为 0%，但描述为 offset 提供了“起始位置”的语义，为 count 提供了“每页数量”的语义，并补充了最大值为 20 的限制。描述有效补偿了 schema 的空白。

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?

描述明确说明工具用于“分页查询草稿箱列表”，动词和资源清晰，且与兄弟工具（创建草稿、获取单个草稿、删除草稿）形成明显区分。即使不看名字，也能知道这是列表查询操作。

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?

描述隐含了“需要草稿列表时使用此工具”的用法，但未显式说明何时不该使用，也未与 get_draft 或创建类工具做取舍对比。用法可推断，但缺少明确指引。

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