list_trash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the explicit 'Read-only' is redundant, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the meaning of trash (soft-deleted, not permanently gone), the restore path, and that `creators` shape matches other item tools. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's role in the trash lifecycle.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and packs useful details (pagination, creator shape, restore link) without fluff. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the output schema presence, and the excellent annotations, the description is complete. It covers scope, safety (read-only), pagination, and the restore pathway, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining 'limit/start: pagination (default limit 25)' and giving the default. This is sufficient for the two simple integer parameters, though it could add a bit more detail on start semantics.

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 'List items currently in the trash' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_items, trash_item, and restore_from_trash by framing it as a read-only list operation. It also specifies the scope (trash, soft-deleted items) and relationship to restore_from_trash.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to list trash items) and even mentions that keys/versions can be passed to restore_from_trash, implying a common use case. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tool set makes this inferable.

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