sp_site_trash_list

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral detail: it's read-only, cannot restore items, uses the /beta endpoint, and warns about schema instability. No contradictions.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded: purpose first, then return fields, then behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

All relevant aspects are covered: purpose, return fields, read-only nature, restore limitation, beta API usage, and schema migration note. Output schema exists, so return field details are optional but still provided. The description is complete for this tool.

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 0% (no parameter info in description). The description does not explain the 'site_url' or 'limit' parameters beyond what the schema provides. For a 2-parameter tool, more guidance (e.g., site URL format, limit default behavior) would help.

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 action ('List items'), the resource ('SharePoint site's recycle bin'), and the scope. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on trash/recycle bin.

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 provides clear usage context (reading recycle bin items) and notes important limitations (no restore via Graph, beta endpoint). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the limitation notes serve as indirect guidance.

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