list_deleted_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only notes that the assets are restorable. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, whether this is a read-only listing, or what distinguishes deleted from purged assets.

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 text is extremely short and has no filler, but it is a sentence fragment that lacks a verb and clear structure. It is concise at the cost of being under-specified.

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?

The tool is simple, has no parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not connect to sibling tools like list_assets or restore_deleted_asset, and it leaves behavioral expectations (e.g., scope of 'deleted') implicit.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics gap. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter details.

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 identifies the resource as deleted/restorable assets, which aligns with the tool name, but it is a noun phrase ('Deleted assets (restorable)') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It does not explicitly say it lists or returns these assets, and it is in French while the tool name is English.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than list_assets or restore_deleted_asset. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or context such as trash/restoration workflows.

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