list_deleted_policies

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

The description states 'list soft-deleted policies' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, without annotations, more information about behavior (e.g., pagination, rate limits, whether it returns all items at once) would be beneficial.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action 'List soft-deleted policies'. No unnecessary words are present.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and relationship to restore_policy. It could be considered complete for a simple 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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context by mentioning that these are candidates for restore_policy, which is helpful beyond the schema.

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 policies, distinguishing it from the sibling 'list_policies' which likely lists active policies. The parenthetical 'rules and guardrails for agents' adds clarity on what policies are.

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 indicates the purpose as providing 'restore candidates for restore_policy', which implies this tool should be used before restore_policy. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied sibling.

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