infomaniak_list_drive_trash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by disclosing the timestamps shown (deleted and added) and the audit purpose. The 'Manager-private' note hints at access restrictions.

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?

Three concise sentences, each delivering essential information: what the tool does, what data it shows, and when to use it. No wasted words.

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 list tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and key output fields. However, it omits parameter explanation and doesn't describe the full response structure, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it fails to mention the drive_id parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name and context. This is a significant gap.

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 states the tool lists items in the kDrive trash bin, specifying files and folders. It differentiates from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_drive_files by focusing on trash content and mentioning timestamps for deletion and addition.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to audit what's pending hard-deletion,' providing a clear use case. Although it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context and sibling list naturally separate trash from active file listing.

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