wb_cards_trash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only names a state ('in trash'). It does not say whether the operation is read-only, how pagination or limit behavior works, or what the response contains.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It is a fragment with no structured operational information and no front-loaded verb or purpose.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It fails to state the action, the result shape, or the behavior of the limit parameter, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly.

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 schema has one parameter, limit, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what limit means or how it affects results. The agent only gets the type and default value, not the parameter's semantics.

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 'Cards in trash (корзина)' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get'. It identifies a resource category but does not clearly state what operation is performed, so an agent cannot tell whether this returns, counts, or otherwise manages trashed cards.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related siblings like wb_cards_list, wb_cards_move_to_trash, or wb_cards_recover_from_trash. No conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned.

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