List Deleted Punch Items

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds value by stating the return type ('paginated JSON array of Punch List records') and that 'the response includes pagination metadata.' This clarifies the output format beyond the schema, though it does not disclose additional behaviors like authorization needs or rate limits.

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 four sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and sequentially covers usage, pagination, required parameters, and API info. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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, the description is nearly complete: it specifies required parameters, pagination, return type, and API endpoint. The only gap is the lack of detail about the structure of the returned 'Deleted Punch objects,' but this is acceptable for a list tool without an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description reiterates the pagination parameters and the required project_id but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. It confirms usage but no extra 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 clearly states 'Return an array of Deleted Punch objects for a specified Project,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (deleted punch items). It distinguishes from likely sibling tool list_punch_items by explicitly focusing on deleted items, and includes the endpoint path '/rest/v1.1/punch_items/recycle_bin' which reinforces the scope.

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 explains when to use the tool: 'to enumerate Punch List records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also describes pagination control with page and per_page. However, it does not explicitly exclude use for active items or mention alternative tools like list_punch_items, which would be helpful for clarity.

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