list_deleted_personas

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that these are soft-deleted and restorable, and explains the 1:1 relationship with agents. No side effects or limitations are mentioned, but for a simple list operation this is sufficient.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, includes a clarifying parenthetical, and ties to a related tool. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and relationship. It could explicitly note that there are no filters, but that is implied by the input schema emptiness.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description adds value by explaining what is listed and the context of personas and agents. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, baseline per instructions is 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 personas), and provides context by defining persona as an agent's character and indicating these are restore candidates. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_personas' by specifying 'soft-deleted' and the relation to restore_persona.

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 implies usage for finding restore candidates, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use alternatives like list_personas. The context is clear enough for an AI to infer, but lacks clear exclusions.

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