File Team Trash Bin

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden: the verb 列出 does imply a read-only listing, but nothing is disclosed about permissions, scope of the team space, pagination, or whether the listing is recursive. An output schema exists, which offsets the return-value gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb+resource first and the disambiguating qualifier attached compactly. No wasted tokens.

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 tool with an output schema and fully documented optional connection parameters, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is the unresolved collision with file_team_trash_list and the fact that the contrast target ('分空间回收站') is never tied to a concrete sibling name.

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 100% (host, port, scheme, profile all documented in the schema), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters — the correct baseline here is 3.

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 (列出) and resource (团队空间垃圾桶) and explicitly scopes it against a sibling concept — the per-space recycle bin. However, it never disambiguates against the near-identical sibling name file_team_trash_list, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 parenthetical gives a conceptual contrast ('与分空间回收站不同'), which is implied usage guidance, but it names no actual sibling tool and gives no when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite conditions. The agent must infer the mapping itself.

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