list_trash

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the return structure (data and pagination) and the nature of the returned items. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about pagination that an agent needs to know.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan and parse. It is slightly longer than the bare minimum, but every section earns its place given the lack of schema descriptions. No 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?

Given the absence of schema descriptions and formal output schema, the description provides complete parameter documentation and a full return field list, sufficient for correct invocation. It omits permission or rate-limit details, but for a non-destructive list operation with readOnlyHint, these are less critical. Overall complete for its complexity.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters with explicit ranges, defaults, and purposes. It states limit max 200 (default 50) and offset default 0, which is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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') and the resource ('items in the Nextcloud trash bin'), and immediately clarifies that these are deleted files/folders that can be restored. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_trash_item, restore_trash_item, and list_directory without ambiguity.

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 establishes a clear context for use: when an agent needs to enumerate trash bin contents. The phrase 'files and folders that were deleted and can be restored' implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool over others, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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