read_deleted

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include the delete date and that restoration requires admin_undelete and an administrator token. It does not mention pagination or truncation, though the limit parameter's schema covers some of that.

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 one compact sentence, front-loading the resource type and adding only the relevant restore note. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description plus schema covers what is returned, how to select kind, and truncation behavior. It could be slightly more explicit about pagination or read authentication, but the readOnly annotation and the clear sibling context make this a minor gap.

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 required 'kind' parameter is reinforced by the description's 'projects or users' and is already self-documenting via its enum. The 'limit' parameter is fully described in the schema, including default, maximum, and truncated behavior. With 50% schema coverage, the description provides enough added orientation.

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 states that this tool returns deleted projects or users, with their delete date, which is a specific verb plus resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from read_projects/read_people by the 'deleted' qualifier.

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 resource scope is explicit: use this when you need deleted projects or users. It also routes restoration to admin_undelete with an administrator token. It does not explicitly say 'do not use for active entities,' but the 'deleted' qualifier makes the boundary clear.

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