list_trash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no ordering, pagination, retention window, or whether entries are restorable versus purge-eligible.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is tight but borders on under-specified for a definition that carries nearly all the semantic load itself.

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 zero-parameter read with a full annotation safety profile and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It omits the relationship to restore_credential and purge_credential, which are the obvious next actions on this data, leaving an agent to guess at the workflow.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies with no meaningful gap.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (soft-deleted credentials), and the qualifier 'soft-deleted' implicitly separates it from list_credentials/find_credentials. It stops short of naming the natural follow-ups (restore_credential, purge_credential) that operate on this same set.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, and no indication of what to do with the listed items. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the trash/bin view rather than an active-credential listing.

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