List Recycled Links

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description adds that it 'Requires either Company Admin or Project Home Admin permission' and specifies the endpoint. It also notes that the response is a 'paginated JSON array of Project-Level Configuration records,' which provides return format details.

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 with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, permissions, usage guidance, and pagination details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes all necessary information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return type (paginated JSON array). It includes permissions, required parameter, pagination controls, and endpoint reference. This is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the purpose of page and per_page for pagination control and that the response includes pagination metadata. It also reiterates that project_id is required.

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 'Returns a list of all Project Home Links in the recycle bin for a specific project,' specifying the exact resource and scope. The verb 'list' and resource 'recycled links' are precise, and the description distinguishes from potential sibling tools like list_links by focusing on the recycle bin.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to enumerate Project-Level Configuration records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also notes the required parameter project_id. However, it does not mention when not to use it or reference alternatives (e.g., list_links).

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