list_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. While 'Get list' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the results come in, whether there's pagination, or if the operation has any side effects. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably accesses sensitive deleted content.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses straightforward language. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 tool that accesses trash/deleted documents with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each document, whether the operation is safe/reversible, or how results are structured. The context demands more disclosure for a tool dealing with potentially sensitive deleted content.

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 description mentions no parameters at all, while the schema has one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't. The baseline would be lower, but the tool has only one optional parameter, making the gap less severe than for multi-parameter tools.

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 'list of documents in trash', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_archived_documents' or 'list_recent_documents', which would require mentioning the specific trash context more explicitly.

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. There's no mention of when to choose list_trash over other listing tools like list_archived_documents or list_recent_documents, nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints for accessing trash content.

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