list_deleted_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists soft-deleted workflows, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or return format. Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), a score of 3 is adequate; the description could add more detail about what the response contains.

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 a single sentence of 14 words that directly states the tool's purpose and its role as restore candidates. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. It earns its place without any fluff.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does and why to use it. It could mention that it returns a list of workflow objects, but this is not strictly necessary. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand its basic purpose and relationship to restore_workflow.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to guidelines, when there are 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none.

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 workflows (business processes) and explicitly identifies them as restore candidates for restore_workflow. The verb 'list' and resource 'soft-deleted workflows' are specific and unambiguous, and it distinguishes from list_workflows by specifying 'soft-deleted' and linking to restore.

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 when to use this tool (when you want to restore workflows) by calling deleted workflows the 'restore candidates for restore_workflow'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives like 'To list active workflows, use list_workflows'. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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