get_trash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get trashed todos' implies a read-only operation that retrieves deleted items, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the output takes, whether there are pagination limits, or if the trash has retention policies. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 perfectly concise three-word phrase that communicates the essential action and target. Every word earns its place: 'Get' specifies the action, 'trashed' distinguishes the state, and 'todos' identifies the resource. There's zero waste or 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but minimal. The output schema will document return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a tool that presumably accesses deleted/sensitive data, more context about permissions, scope, or limitations would be helpful despite the structured fields.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. The baseline for zero parameters with complete schema coverage is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'trashed todos', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_todos, get_today, etc. by specifying the 'trashed' state. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other trash-related operations that might exist (though none are listed among siblings).

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when you might need trashed todos versus active ones (get_todos), or how this relates to other retrieval tools like get_inbox or get_tagged_items. There's no context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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