list_trash

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description clarifies the trash semantics ('soft-deleted... not yet permanently gone'), the read-only nature, and pagination behavior (default limit 25). This adds meaningful context that annotations do not provide.

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 concise sentences, leading with the core purpose, followed by essential behavioral and parameter context. No redundant or filler content.

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 listing tool with an output schema provided, the description fully covers purpose, read-only nature, relationship to restore, and pagination. Everything needed to invoke correctly is present.

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 input schema only gives names and defaults for limit/start with no descriptions. The description explicitly groups them as 'pagination' and states the default limit, adding semantic value beyond the bare schema. It could elaborate on start as an offset, but is sufficient for simple pagination.

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 states 'List items currently in the trash' with clear scope ('soft-deleted... not yet permanently gone'), using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates this from sibling list tools (list_collections, list_tags) and from the related restore/delete actions.

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 implies when to use: when you need to see recoverable trash items, and notes that results can feed into restore_from_trash. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search_items for non-trash items, though the context makes this clear.

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