list_deleted_flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately indicates a read operation ('list') and the state ('soft-deleted'). It does not disclose details like pagination or ordering, but for a parameterless list tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with a parenthetical clarification and a dash indicating purpose. Every part is meaningful and earns its place.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage context. It lacks explicit mention of the return format, but given no output schema and the simplicity of the tool, it remains sufficiently complete.

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 has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the description need not add any parameter info, earning a baseline score of 4.

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 'soft-deleted flows', and clarifies that flows are 'reusable workflow fragments'. It also explicitly connects to 'restore_flow', distinguishing it from active flow listing tools like 'list_flows'.

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 specifies that the deleted flows are 'restore candidates for restore_flow', guiding the agent to use this tool before restoration. It implies a contrast with 'list_flows' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives.

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