trash_items

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral context. It only states the basic operation but does not disclose that the tool supports filtering, pagination, or that it returns a list of items. No mention of read-only or destructive behavior.

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 a single concise sentence, but it is underspecified given the tool's complexity. It lacks necessary details that could be provided without excessive length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many filter parameters, output schema exists), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, pagination, or relationship to other tools like 'deleted_items'. An output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 description adds no information about the complex 'req' parameter or its sub-fields. While the input schema includes descriptions for each field, the context reports 0% schema description coverage, meaning the description should compensate, which it fails to do.

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 'Retrieve items in the trash' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (items in trash). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleted_items' or 'search_items' that may overlap or have different scopes.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_items'.

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