list_deleted_policy_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that deleted version numbers are reserved and gaps are normal, which is a behavioral trait beyond a simple listing. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or response format, but for a read-only list tool, the core behavior is adequately described.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose and links to the restore counterpart. The second adds an important behavioral nuance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers its purpose and a key behavioral insight. It could briefly mention the output structure (e.g., list of rows) but the lack of detail is acceptable 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' already described in the schema as 'The policy's id.' The description adds no further parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 3 as per the rule for high schema coverage.

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 specifies the exact action: listing deleted version rows for a policy, and explicitly connects these to restore candidates for restore_deleted_policy_version. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_policy_versions by focusing on deleted versions, and adds a key behavioral detail about reserved version numbers.

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 states that these are restore candidates and explains that gaps in version numbers are expected, which helps the agent interpret results correctly. It implicitly contrasts with list_policy_versions but does not explicitly exclude other usage scenarios or state when not to use this tool.

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