list_trash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and args, but does not describe the return format, whether it reads-only (though implied), or any edge cases like empty trash or pagination behavior. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for purpose and two lines for args. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured with an 'Args' section.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters, and an output schema exists (so return values need not be described). The description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics sufficiently, but it could have mentioned that trash items can be restored or permanently deleted via sibling tools for richer 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?

The description adds meaningful details beyond the schema: it specifies limit as 'Max items to return (1–100)' and offset as 'Offset for pagination,' including a range not present in the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable.

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 'List files in the Trash.' with a specific verb and resource, and the 'Trash' scope distinguishes it from siblings like list_files and list_recent_files. It is precise and unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description (listing trashed files), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_files or search_files, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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