list_deleted_tool_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It discloses that deleted version numbers stay reserved and gaps are expected, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe pagination, data volume, or any potential side effects. For a read-only list operation, the disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and link to the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value without 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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, expected behavior (gaps), and relationship to restoration. It lacks details about output format or pagination, but these are less critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 schema covers all parameters (only one, with 100% description coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's field description 'The tool's id.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool, and explicitly labels them as restore candidates for the sibling restore_deleted_tool_version. The verb 'list' and resource 'tool's deleted version rows' are specific and distinct from other tools.

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 mentions that the output is intended for use with restore_deleted_tool_version, providing a clear use case. It also explains that gaps in numbering are normal, which guides interpretation of results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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