smartsuite_list_deleted_applications

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true. The description goes beyond by specifying exact return fields (id, name, recordTerm) and the important limitation that restore is not available via API. This adds valuable behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists outputs, and the third provides essential caveat. Structure is front-loaded and all sentences earn their place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essential: what it lists, what it returns, and what it cannot do. It lacks mention of pagination or error scenarios, but for a basic listing tool this is sufficient.

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?

There is only one parameter (solutionId) with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'The solution ID whose deleted applications to list.' Since schema carries the burden, a baseline 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 specifies 'list soft-deleted applications in a solution's trash' with a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes from listing active applications by explicitly stating 'deleted' and 'in trash', and differentiates from other deletion-related tools via the 'read-only' and 'listing only' qualifiers.

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 provides clear context on when to use: to view deleted applications. It adds critical guidance by noting that no public restore endpoint exists, nudging the agent toward UI restore. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the sibling set includes 'list_applications' for active ones, which is implicitly contrasted. This is strong but not exhaustive.

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