List trash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the underlying PROPFIND endpoint, which is technical trivia rather than agent-relevant behavior, and says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether entries include original paths or deletion timestamps.

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?

Front-loaded with the actionable sentence and short overall. The second line is a raw HTTP method and path that adds little for an agent choosing a tool, but it is a single compact line and does not obscure the 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter read tool, so the bar is low, but there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what a trash item looks like (name, size, deletion time, restorable identifier). An agent can call it correctly but cannot anticipate the response shape for a follow-up restore call.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The path template 'trashbin/{user}/trash' suggests the account user is implicit from the connection rather than an argument, which is consistent with the empty schema and mildly useful context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list the items in the trash bin of the connected account. The scope ('connected account') is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, nextcloud_restore_trash_item, or from nextcloud_list_files, so an agent must infer the difference between viewing trash contents and viewing live files.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can deduce this is the read step before restoring or purging deleted items, but the description never says when to use it versus nextcloud_list_files or nextcloud_restore_trash_item. No prerequisites, no mention that a trashed item's identifier is needed for a subsequent restore.

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