list_deleted_agents

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

No annotations present, so description must carry full burden. It only mentions 'soft-deleted' status, but does not disclose permissions requirements, side effects, or detailed behavior like pagination or sorting. Minimal transparency.

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?

Extremely concise at 10 words, front-loading the purpose and linking to a sibling tool. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It fails to describe the return format or fields, which is critical for a list tool. The connection to restore_agent is helpful but leaves gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate.

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 it lists soft-deleted agents and explicitly links to the restore_agent tool as the next step. It distinguishes from other list_deleted_* tools by specifying agents and restore context.

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?

Implies usage as precursor to restore_agent, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or any exclusion criteria. The mention of 'restore candidates' provides context but not formal guidelines.

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