iris_list_drafts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'list' but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. It also leaves 'recent' undefined, which could affect expectations about ordering or limits.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the folder parameter details are presented compactly. It is an efficient, well-structured definition.

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 simple list tool, the description covers the main use case and the folder parameter thoroughly. It does not explain the limit parameter or the meaning of 'recent', but the output schema likely documents the return format, and the limit has a clear default in the input schema. Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, this is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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 description adds meaningful detail for the folder parameter, explaining how to select it by display name and the default behavior. However, it entirely omits the limit parameter, which has no schema description (coverage 0%). Since the description must compensate for both parameters, it only partially fulfills this duty.

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 action (list) and resource (recent messages in a draft folder), and the folder parameter's behavior distinguishes it from siblings like iris_list_folders (which lists folders, not messages) and iris_create_draft. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (when you want to list drafts) and explains the folder parameter's usage with default and explicit values. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as suggesting iris_list_folders to discover folder names, so it stops short of full guidance.

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