list_deleted_workflow_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that deleted version numbers stay reserved and gaps are expected, which is helpful. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or pagination behavior.

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 with two short sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second provides a critical behavioral note. No wasteful words.

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 covers the essential purpose and key behavioral detail (reserved numbers). It is nearly complete, though it could mention if any filtering or ordering exists.

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 one parameter 'id' described as 'The workflow's id.' The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a workflow's deleted version rows and explicitly ties them to being restore candidates for restore_deleted_workflow_version. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_workflow_versions by specifying 'deleted version 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 indicates this tool is useful for identifying restore candidates, implying its usage when preparing to restore. It mentions that version numbers stay reserved, which is a useful note, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like list_workflow_versions.

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