List deleted memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them while adding genuinely new facts: a read-permission requirement, a 30-day restorable window, and that returned content is only a preview. Those are exactly the behavioral details an agent can't infer from structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, and the core scope/ordering lands in the first sentence before the permission, retention, and negativity constraints. Each sentence supplies a distinct fact.

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, and the description covers return characteristics (preview content, deletion ordering) plus the permission and retention constraints, which is close to complete for a two-param read tool. It stops short of stating how paging results should be driven, though the cursor parameter documents that.

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%, with both limit and cursor fully documented including defaults and next_cursor usage, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only ordering semantics ('most recently deleted first'), not any syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (list records in the Vault's trash) plus ordering (most recently deleted first), which cleanly separates it from ragionex_list_memories (live records) and ragionex_restore_memory (acting on them). An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit exclusions ('cannot permanently delete records or empty the trash') and names an alternative for the adjacent need ('use ragionex_memory_versions with the record ID and revision to read it in full'). Prerequisite (read permission) and time window (30 days) are stated up front.

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