get_trashed_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get trashed assets' but does not explain whether it returns a paginated list, what 'trashed' means in this context, or any other behavioral characteristics. It adds no value beyond the tool name.

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 brief, consisting of a single sentence. While it is compact, it does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool name and provides no additional information. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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 list tool with pagination and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or the concept of 'trashed' assets. The tool is relatively simple, but the description leaves too many important details unstated.

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 input schema describes both parameters ('page' and 'per_page') with helpful descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already covers the semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get trashed assets' essentially restates the tool name 'get_trashed_assets' with spaces, making it a tautology. It does not add any new information or distinguish the tool from siblings like 'get_asset' or 'restore_asset', and lacks a clear scope (e.g., listing all trashed assets).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for use, exclusions, or related tools such as 'restore_asset' or 'search_assets'. The description simply states what it does without context.

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