list_deleted_agent_versions

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden. It adds important behavioral context: 'Deleted version numbers stay reserved (not reused), so gaps in the numbering are expected, not corruption.' This explains why gaps might appear, which is helpful for an agent.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it lists, why it's useful (restore candidates), and a notable behavior (gaps expected).

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 schema has one parameter 'id' with description 'The agent's id.' Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the score remains 3.

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', the resource 'deleted agent version rows', and the purpose as 'restore candidates for restore_deleted_agent_version'. It distinguishes from similar tools like list_agent_versions by focusing on deleted versions.

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 explicitly mentions that these are restore candidates for restore_deleted_agent_version, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined.

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