list_deleted_reference_docs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It only mentions 'soft-deleted' but does not disclose behavior like whether the list is complete, paginated, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, 19 words, front-loaded with the key action and purpose. No superfluous content.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is listed and the purpose. Does not describe return format, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline score of 3 for a parameterless tool.

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 soft-deleted reference docs, which are background knowledge for agents, and explicitly identifies them as restore candidates. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_reference_docs (active docs) and aligns with restore_reference_doc.

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 deleted docs to restore via restore_reference_doc, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor provide any exclusions. Guidance is minimal.

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