list_trash

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

The description repeats the readOnlyHint annotation but adds useful context beyond it, including the exact output fields and the connection to restore_profile. For a simple read-only list operation, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 concise fragments/sentences with no filler. The scope is front-loaded, the output details are compact, and the cross-reference to restore_profile earns its place.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to use the result. Nothing essential for invoking or understanding this tool is missing.

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 has no parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline of 4 applies because the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 identifies the resource: profiles in the recycle bin, and what information is returned: name, deletion time, and disk usage. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_profiles and restore_profile by the trash scope and the read-only note.

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?

It explicitly says the returned names are meant for use with restore_profile, which provides a direct follow-up action. It does not explicitly contrast against list_profiles, but the recycle-bin scope makes the intended use obvious.

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