Get Trashed Tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately states that the tool retrieves deleted/trashed tasks and implies recoverability, which is the essential behavior. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any edge cases, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with a relevant use case. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and use case. It could mention that it returns a list of trashed tasks with standard fields, but the current level is adequate given the low complexity.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (limit and start), including defaults and pagination semantics. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving deleted/trashed tasks. It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (tasks that have been deleted/trashed), and uniquely distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ticktick_get_task or ticktick_get_all_tasks by targeting trashed tasks specifically.

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 provides a clear use case ('useful for recovering accidentally deleted items') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. This is strong contextual guidance but lacks the explicit exclusions/alternatives that would earn a 5.

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