get_trash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get trashed todos' without explaining what 'trashed' means, whether it's a read operation, or any side effects. This is insufficient.

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 extremely concise at two words, but it lacks sufficient context. It could be improved by adding a brief explanation of what 'trashed' means or how the results are sorted.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema, so the description could be minimal. However, it does not clarify the scope (e.g., all trashed items or just todos) or any default ordering, which would help the agent.

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 no parameters in the input schema. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, 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 'Get' and resource 'trashed todos', indicating it retrieves deleted items. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_inbox or get_todos, which could be confusing.

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 such as get_inbox or get_todos. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description offers no selection criteria.

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