list_deleted_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the response includes a `restrictedKases` key for partially readable records, which is a useful detail. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or that only deleted projects are returned (implicit from name). The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose (audit feature, list deleted projects with timestamp). The second adds a specific behavioral note. No unnecessary words, but a slightly more structured format could improve scannability.

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 mentions one response key (`restrictedKases`) but does not describe other fields or sorting. It covers the key requirement (`since`), but lacks details on pagination, default ordering, or error responses. For an audit list tool, it is partially complete but leaves gaps.

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?

The description adds value for the `since` parameter by providing an example format and reiterating it is required, but schema coverage is low (33%). The `page` and `perPage` parameters receive no additional meaning in the description, leaving them under-documented. The description does not fully compensate for the missing schema details.

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 the verb 'list', the resource 'deleted projects', and the scope 'on or after a given timestamp'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_projects and filter_projects by focusing on deleted records, and aligns with similar audit tools like list_deleted_opportunities.

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 labels this an 'Audit feature', suggesting a specific use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_projects or search). It notes that the `since` parameter is required, which is helpful, but lacks guidance on exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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