list_remote_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 states the action ('List all remote drafts') but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list structure, fields included), pagination behavior, error conditions, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a database.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying 'remote' and 'Firebase' for clarity.

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 complexity (a listing tool for remote drafts), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'remote draft' entails, the expected return format, or any behavioral nuances (e.g., sorting, filtering). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could have mentioned implicit parameters like authentication context. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'remote drafts from Firebase', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_drafts' by specifying 'remote' drafts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other listing tools like 'list_campaign_examples' or 'list_my_published_levels'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), differentiate from similar tools like 'list_drafts' (which might list local drafts), or specify use cases (e.g., before deletion or publication).

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