list_trash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by indicating this is a read-only display operation ('Displays') and specifying the return format ('Formatted string containing list of documents in trash'). It doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination or rate limits, but provides solid behavioral context for a zero-parameter tool.

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by specific usage guidelines and return information. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The bulleted list makes scanning easy while maintaining efficiency.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about when to use it and what it returns. It could potentially mention if there are any filters or sorting options (though none exist in schema), but overall it's quite complete for this tool's complexity level.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, and instead focuses on usage and output, which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 the specific action ('Displays') and resource ('all documents currently in the trash'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_archived_documents, list_collections, and list_document_comments. The verb+resource combination 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 description provides explicit usage scenarios with a bulleted list of four specific cases: finding deleted documents for restoration, reviewing pending deletions, identifying documents to restore, and verifying deletions. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like restore_document or search_documents.

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