list_recycle_bin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that entries are restorable deleted files, but says nothing about pagination, default limits, or how the recycle bin is scoped to a share.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The second sentence is arguably redundant but adds a useful qualifier about restorability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, with five undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, a filtered/sorted list tool needs more detail about scoping, filtering, and sorting than two sentences provide.

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?

Five parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description documents none of them. Only the word 'shared folder' loosely implies the required 'share' parameter; limit, pattern, sort_by, and sort_direction are entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the contents of a shared folder's recycle bin') and clarifies the resource further ('recently deleted files that can be restored'). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings like list_files or search_files, so an agent must infer the recycle-bin scope on its own.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., list_files for live contents vs. this for deleted items). The phrase 'recently deleted files that can be restored' hints at the use case but leaves the selection decision to inference.

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