List deleted items

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description is fully consistent, adding behavior the annotation can't: max 200 items with a truncated flag, retention windows (keepDays/libraryDays/templateDays), and that purgeAt null means kept until deleted forever. This is exactly the extra context the annotation bar asks for.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope and the newest-first ordering, then the return shape, then the sibling routing. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the item-shape enumeration and the four sibling name pairs make it a long single paragraph that could be split for scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return value and does so precisely (items fields, total, truncated, max 200, retention fields, purgeAt semantics). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description has no parameter semantics to add and none are needed. It redirects that space into return-shape detail instead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('one newest-first list of projects, clips of live projects, library items and templates'), plus the scope 'Restorable deletes (the Deleted page)'. That scope qualifier cleanly separates it from list_projects, search_clips and the restore_*/purge_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: restore_project/restore_clip/restore_asset/restore_layer_template bring items back, purge_* removes them permanently, implying this tool is the read-only discovery step before either. It doesn't state an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion, which keeps it from a 5.

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