list_deleted_experiences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the scope of results (soft-deleted records, two categories), but omits pagination, ordering, result volume, and an explicit read-only confirmation beyond the verb 'list'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that defines the ambiguous term 'soft-deleted'. No filler; every clause adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description clarifies which record categories appear. With no annotations, a brief note on ordering or expected volume would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. Schema description coverage is 100% for the empty object.

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 (列出/list) and resource (soft-deleted records), and goes further by defining the record composition: rejected drafts plus deleted experiences. This lets an agent distinguish it from list_all_experiences and list_pending_experiences, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'便于恢复或彻底清理' implies the two downstream workflows (restore vs. purge) but never names restore_experience or purge_experiences, which are the actual alternatives an agent should route to. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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