lakeview_dashboard_trash_list

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming a read-only operation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already signals. It does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects.

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 (one short sentence). However, it may be underspecified for a tool with two parameters and pagination. It is front-loaded but lacks essential details that would make it effective.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits context about what 'trashed' means (e.g., soft-deleted dashboards) and how pagination works. It is minimally adequate for a simple list operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of page_size and page_token. While these parameters are standard for pagination, the description fails to add any semantic value beyond the schema field titles and defaults.

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 'List trashed Lakeview dashboards' uses a specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'trashed Lakeview dashboards'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lakeview_dashboard_list (non-trashed) and lakeview_dashboard_purge/restore (actions on trashed items).

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 does not mention that it returns soft-deleted dashboards that can be restored or purged, nor does it reference sibling tools. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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