list_trash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata (e.g., deletion dates), or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get list of documents in trash') directly contributes to understanding, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., document IDs, titles, timestamps), how results are ordered, or error conditions. For a list tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully usable.

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 adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides (a 'limit' parameter with default 25 and range 1-100). With 0% schema description coverage, the schema alone documents the parameter fully. The description doesn't compensate by explaining how 'limit' affects results (e.g., pagination), so it meets the baseline but doesn't add value.

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. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_archived_documents' or 'list_recent_documents' by specifying the trash location. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible list operations, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing trash access), exclusions (e.g., not for active documents), or compare to siblings like 'list_archived_documents' for different document states. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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