list_trash

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the behavioral bar is lower. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned fields (documentId, type, kind, name, deletedAt) and scoping visibility to the current site, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and terminating with an actionable next step. No filler 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. For a read-only list tool this is nearly complete, lacking only ordering/limit details.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is a single optional 'site' parameter whose schema description already explains multisite behavior and the list_sites fallback. The description's 'in this site' phrasing echoes the schema rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the trashed content') and scopes it ('you can see in this site'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It also names returned fields, but does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like tree or trash_content.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'Use the documentId with restore_content' points to the downstream restore flow, which suggests this is the discovery step before restore. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many list_* siblings.

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