File Trash List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so with an unusually valuable disclosure: on fnOS 1.2.0800 the trash endpoint returns only a success envelope with no entries, with or without path, and file rm is a hard delete. It does not cover auth/session prerequisites or general (non-1.2.0800) behavior, but the platform-specific warning is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot supply.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single short sentence, followed by a clearly marked warning. The warning is somewhat verbose but every clause earns its place by qualifying the returned payload; no filler text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be restated. For a read-only list operation the description is nearly complete, its only gap being that it never names the alternative trash tools or mentions auth/session requirements.

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%, so all five parameters (host, path, port, scheme, profile) are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to path behavior ('带不带 path 都一样') without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('列出回收站内容') that an agent can act on immediately. It does not differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling file_team_trash_list (team vs. personal trash), so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

Provides a strong 'when-not' caveat — do not treat output as evidence of recoverability — which is real usage guidance. However it never states when to prefer this tool over file_team_trash_list, file_trash_restore, or file_trash_clear, so routing between the trash siblings is left to inference.

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