List trash

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering, per-entry fields (ID, content, board_id), and the retention rule that Milanote keeps trash until the user empties it in the app. The one real gap is pagination mechanics — it says has_more can be true but there are zero parameters, so it never explains how a caller retrieves the next page.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then return contents, then lifecycle/pagination caveats. The slight restatement between the opening clause and 'Lists your own trash' earns its place by adding the ownership constraint and sort order.

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 no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape and ordering, plus the retention rule that an agent otherwise could not guess. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read tool; only the has_more retrieval path is left unexplained.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain inputs, and it instead spends its words on output shape, which is the right trade.

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 resource (trashed cards and boards) with explicit scope ('your own trash') and ordering ('newest first'), and distinguishes it from active board listing by naming the trash as the domain and restore_card as the recovery path. An agent can tell immediately this is not list_boards.

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 context is clear — this is the view of items the user discarded and has not yet emptied — and it points to restore_card as the follow-up action. It never explicitly says when not to use it (e.g., use list_boards for live content), so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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