list_trashed_collectives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by clarifying the soft-deleted state and noting that items can be restored or permanently deleted. It does not contradict any annotations and enhances understanding of the operation's scope.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant context about follow-up actions. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete for a simple list tool. It states what is listed (soft-deleted collectives) and the relevant next steps (restore or permanent delete). No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly decide when to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to provide. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this scores a 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, which 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Collectives' with a specific scope: 'soft-deleted'. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_collectives by explicitly narrowing to trashed items. It also adds the note about restoration/deletion, which clarifies the purpose further.

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 implies usage: listing soft-deleted collectives is a precursor to restoring or permanently deleting them. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, the context of 'These can be restored or permanently deleted' signals when this tool is appropriate, and the sibling list_collectives is implicitly the non-trashed counterpart.

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