list-drafts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it reads actual Drafts mailbox (not just open windows) and describes the return content (draft_id, identity, recipients, etc.). It lacks mention of permissions or idempotency but covers essential traits well.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with usage context, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no required ones) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects. It explains when to use, what it does, what it returns, and when not to 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter (limit) described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists saved Apple Mail drafts from every account's Drafts mailbox, not just open compose windows. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('drafts') and explicitly distinguishes from list-messages for ordinary mailbox messages.

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?

Explicit 'Use when:' and 'Do not use when:' sections provide clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool list-messages is named as the appropriate alternative for ordinary messages.

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