get_deleted_profiles_v2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get list'), but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (suggested by 'offset' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what data the list includes (e.g., metadata vs. full profiles). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core purpose ('Get list of deleted profiles'). It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth), parameter meanings, and output details, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation despite its conciseness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain 'currentWorkspace' (optional string) or 'offset' (required number), leaving their purposes (e.g., workspace filtering, pagination start) undocumented. This fails to address the coverage gap.

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 'Get list of deleted profiles' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('deleted profiles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_profile_v2' (active profiles) by specifying 'deleted' profiles, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'post_deleted_profiles_restore' (restoration tool).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspace context), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_profile_v2' for active profiles or 'post_deleted_profiles_restore' for restoration, leaving usage context unclear.

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