list_trash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the important scope that only soft-deleted pages are returned, but it does not mention output shape, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already implies.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one required parameter and fully documented optional pagination parameters, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It could be slightly stronger with a pointer to related tools or return-value expectations, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so limit, cursor, and space_id are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning except reinforcing that the listing is scoped to a space.

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 a specific verb (List), a specific resource (soft-deleted pages), and a scope (in a space). It distinguishes itself from list_pages by the 'soft-deleted' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

The phrase 'soft-deleted pages' implies when to use this tool—when the agent needs trash contents rather than active pages. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer a sibling tool like list_pages or restore_page, and no exclusion criteria.

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