list_trash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose a behavioral trait beyond the name: entries are returned without their bodies, which warns the agent not to expect full content in the results. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, retention windows, or whether the operation is a safe read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant detail (the missing bodies) is placed where it will be read first.

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 zero-param list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what is listed and one property of the result. It omits what fields a listed entry actually exposes (id, title, deletion time), how results are ordered or paginated, and how to act on a result, which an agent needs since no output schema exists.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden to discharge; the baseline of 4 applies. The description cannot and need not add parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List trashed entries') and adds a scope qualifier ('without their bodies'). An agent can tell this is the trash listing, but the description does no work to distinguish it from siblings such as get_entry (for trashed content), search, or restore.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. The agent must infer on its own that this is for browsing deleted items and that get_entry/restore are the follow-ups for inspecting or recovering a specific trashed entry.

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