teams_list_drafts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only listing, what the result shape is, whether it's scoped to a user or workspace, or whether empty results are common. The one useful behavioral fact — that drafts are pending human action on the 'chatwatch page' — is minor and doesn't cover the operational profile.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding or repetition. It is efficient, though what little length it has is spent defining the concept of a draft rather than front-loading the tool's action.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema list tool, the description should at minimum say it returns the set of pending drafts and roughly what they contain. As written, an agent cannot predict the response or confirm this is a read operation, leaving a real gap against the otherwise simple contract.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The lack of a filter parameter is arguably worth a note, but with an empty schema there is no semantic gap to fill.

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 never states an action verb — it explains what a draft is ('replies waiting for a person to send or discard') rather than saying this tool lists/retrieves them. The resource is inferable from the name and the phrase 'replies waiting', but the agent must combine name+description to know what the call does, and nothing distinguishes it from teams_read_messages or teams_list_chats.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as teams_read_messages or teams_list_chats — no trigger conditions, no exclusions. The only hint is that drafts are things awaiting human send/discard, which implies a review workflow but leaves the agent to infer it.

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