panelica_file_manager_get_v1_files_trash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the core safety profile. The description adds useful context by stating 'Required scopes: files:read' and repeating the read-only nature, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination behavior or response format.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then gives the HTTP verb, endpoint, category, required scope, and read-only status. Every line carries useful information with no filler.

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-only list operation, the combination of the description, full parameter schema, and safety annotations is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly. The only minor gap is that the description does not explicitly mention that pagination is governed by page/limit or that results pertain to the target user_id, but those details are already present in the schema.

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 three parameters (page, limit, user_id) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 trash items' with the endpoint GET /v1/files/trash. It clearly communicates the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related sibling trash stats or restore/empty operations.

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 implied by the purpose statement: an agent can infer this tool is for listing items in the file manager trash. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the nearby trash_stats or restore/empty/delete-alternatives.

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