list_trashed_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses admin-only access, project scoping, a max of 100 items per request, ordering by latest deletion, and inclusion of deleted_at/deleted_by fields. It also clarifies the 'count' semantics.

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 appropriately sized, with three substantive sentences and line breaks that improve readability. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, scope, permissions, and parameter behavior, with no fluff.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description covers all important contextual aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, permission requirements, scoping, pagination/limit behavior, and key response fields. It is self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has only 'limit' with a default and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that 'limit' returns the top N items in latest deletion order and that a request can retrieve at most 100, adding meaning well beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it retrieves the current project's trash list of deleted tasks, using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_my_tasks/get_task by noting deleted tasks are excluded from those and that this list is for restore_task targeting.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: to restore deleted tasks, check id/title in this list because deleted tasks don't appear in normal queries. It references sibling tools (list_my_tasks/get_task, restore_task) to establish context and alternatives.

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