list_trash

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that by disclosing that results include deletion times and that paging is cursor-based. The ID-reuse note for restore_nodes/batch_nodes is actionable operational context not present in the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource and its key attributes are front-loaded and the follow-up action is placed second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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-required-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and a fully documented cursor, the description supplies everything needed: what is listed, what metadata comes back, how paging works, and what to do with the results. No meaningful gap remains.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('cursor from the preceding page'), so the description's mention of 'cursor pagination' only echoes it. No additional semantics such as page size, ordering, or cursor expiry are added, which is the expected baseline at 100% coverage.

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 recoverable trash') plus the distinguishing scope detail that this is trashed-but-restorable content, which separates it from list_files and from the mutating trash_nodes/restore_nodes siblings. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear forward routing: the returned IDs feed restore_nodes or batch_nodes, which tells the agent this is the discovery step before a restore. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'use list_files for active items'), so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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