trash_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world scope, and the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing.' It adds the prerequisite that the vault must be 'open' and sketches the return shape, though it does not spell out what happens if the vault is locked.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by when to use it. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, returns, prerequisites ('open vault'), and next-step tools. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single vault parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example ('Taxes'). The description only implies the vault must be open, adding marginal semantics beyond the structured field, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List what's in an open vault's trash') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, original path, timestamp). It is clearly distinguishable from list_folder, find, and read_file, which operate on live content rather than trashed items.

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?

It explicitly names the two downstream actions and their tools: 'find an item to bring back with undo, or to delete for good with empty_trash.' That routes the agent to the right sibling for each follow-up intent.

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