list_deleted_output_schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the tool lists soft-deleted schemas but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, ordering, authentication requirements, or whether it returns all items or requires additional parameters. For a list tool, this is 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb 'List' and the resource, includes a parenthetical definition, and concludes with a clear reference to the restore tool. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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 of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and links to the restore workflow. However, it could be more complete by noting whether the list is exhaustive or supports search/filtering, and by explicitly distinguishing from list_output_schemas. Overall, it is nearly complete for a straightforward list operation.

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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to document). Per guidelines, this yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it could have mentioned that no parameters are required. Still, it meets the expected standard.

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 'List soft-deleted output schemas' with a parenthetical explanation of what output schemas are ('reusable step/agent output contracts'). It also references the sibling tool 'restore_output_schema', distinguishing this as the pre-restore listing tool. This provides specificity and differentiation from other list tools.

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 notes these are 'restore candidates for restore_output_schema', indicating when this tool should be used (before restoration). It implies the alternative is the active listing tool (list_output_schemas) even though not named. A direct mention of the alternative would make it stronger, but the context is clear enough.

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