List Trash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add one genuine behavioral fact — results are ordered most recently deleted first — which is not in the schema or annotations. It says nothing about pagination depth or whether the space must be accessible, so the addition is modest.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and the ordering front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be scanned for.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the remaining burden on the description is small; it supplies the one thing structured data lacked, the sort order. Only the relationship to restore_page / list_pages is unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (space_id, limit, cursor) are documented inline, including the list_spaces cross-reference. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (pages in the Trash of a space), plus a scope qualifier (a space) that separates it from workspace-wide listing. It is implicitly distinct from list_pages, but that separation is never made explicit by naming the sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the lookup to run before restore_page or trash_page. No when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., list_pages for live pages) is given.

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