list_deleted_reference_doc_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that deleted version numbers remain reserved and are not reused, preventing misinterpretation of gaps as data corruption. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral note. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and a behavioral nuance. It does not explain output format or pagination, but these are less critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'id' parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 tool lists deleted version rows of a reference_doc, explicitly noting they are restore candidates for restore_deleted_reference_doc_version. It distinguishes from sibling list_reference_doc_versions by focusing on deleted rows.

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 identifies the tool as providing restore candidates, implying usage context for restoration. It explains that gaps in numbering are expected due to reserved numbers, guiding interpretation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this compared to list_reference_doc_versions.

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