list_trashed_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. The added note 'These can be restored or permanently purged' is about the items, not the tool's behavior, providing minimal additional behavioral disclosure. Given the annotations cover the essential traits, a score of 3 is appropriate for the limited extra context.

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 redundancy, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. Every phrase contributes meaning—listing, scope, and the associated actions—making it concise and structured well for quick comprehension.

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 read-only list operation with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it lists, the scope, and what can be done with the results. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and the only parameter collectiveId is already documented with 'Collective id from list_collectives.' The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully explains parameters.

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 tool's action (list) and resource (pages in the trash for a Collective), distinguishing it from list_pages which likely returns non-trashed pages. The phrase 'for a Collective' scopes it precisely, and the mention of restore/purge options adds context about the items without ambiguity.

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 explains the context of use (listing trashed pages) and hints at downstream actions (restore or permanently purge), which guides an agent to when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_trashed_collectives or state when not to use it, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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