list_trash

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It still adds two pieces of value beyond the structured data: the read-access requirement and the explicit guarantee that no restore or purge occurs, which is exactly the concern an agent has for a trash-listing call.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and then scoped, with the disclaimer last. Every clause carries information: resource, visibility scope, access requirement, and disposition guarantee.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials; return values need not be explained. The one residual gap is that 'category scope' is ambient rather than parameterized, leaving the mechanism by which an agent selects a category scope unstated.

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 no parameter semantics for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, leaving nothing ambiguous to compensate for.

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 soft-deleted documents') plus a scope qualifier ('visible to the active workspace or category scope'). It also distinguishes itself from the destructive siblings (restore_trashed_document, permanently_delete_document) by explicitly disclaiming restore/purge behavior, so an agent can separate it from them without opening a 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?

The scope clause establishes when this tool applies, and 'does not restore or purge anything' functions as a when-not signal that steers the agent toward restore_trashed_document or permanently_delete_document for those actions. However, no sibling is named explicitly, so the routing still requires inference.

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