panelica_file_manager_get_v1_files_trash

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only lists the HTTP method and endpoint, which is redundant with the input schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior (defaults, limits), whether user_id filters by specific user, or if results are scoped to the authenticated user. No mention of read-only or side effects.

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 concise with two sentences for the purpose, plus HTTP and category. It front-loads the main action. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., adding a note on pagination.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the list returns, how pagination works, and the meaning of user_id. It does none of these, leaving the agent with significant gaps. The description is too minimal for a tool with 3 optional parameters and no other context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Query parameter: user_id' entries. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting, but description could provide context like default values or usage examples.

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 'List trash items,' which clearly indicates the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling trash tools (delete, empty, restore, stats) which have different verbs. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a 'trash item' (files vs directories).

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like trash stats or trash empty. No prerequisites or context are mentioned, such as whether authentication or specific permissions are required.

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