List Recycled Action Plan References

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by confirming a paginated JSON array with metadata, and stating the endpoint. No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

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 concise and well-structured. Each sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, pagination, required parameter, API reference. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, it adequately describes the return format (paginated JSON array with metadata) and includes API endpoint info. However, it could detail filter/sort parameters more given the 9-parameter 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds minimal param context (page/per_page for pagination, project_id required) but does not explain filters or sort beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it lists recycled action plan references and mentions use cases like enumeration and filtering. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_recycled_action_plan or list_action_plan_references, which could cause confusion.

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 reasonable usage context (paginated overview, find IDs, filter) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. No guidance on when to choose this over the non-recycled version or other list tools.

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