List Recycled RFIs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which are consistent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: paginated JSON array, required project_id, pagination controls, and filtering. No contradictions.

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 focused sentences. It starts with the primary purpose, then use cases, pagination, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a list tool with pagination and filtering, the description covers return format, required parameters, and filtering ability. It lacks explicit mention of max per_page (though schema includes it) and error conditions. Annotations provide safety context, making it mostly complete.

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 parameters are well-documented by the schema. The description adds context by mentioning required parameters and pagination but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Returns all deleted RFIs in a specified Project,' accurately reflecting the tool's function. The verb 'list' and resource 'recycled RFIs' are specific, and the title distinguishes it from similar tools like list_rfis.

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 says 'Use this to enumerate RFI records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters,' providing clear scenarios. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives like list_rfis, which slightly reduces the score.

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