trash_get_naming

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to bear full burden for safety and side-effect disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any network or rate-limiting implications.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, containing no filler or redundancy.

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 simple retrieval tool with two enum parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. It could optionally hint at the output format, but the lack of such detail is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 fully describes both parameters with enum values, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds only a vague reference to 'your media server', not clarifying the roles of 'service' vs 'mediaServer' 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 clearly specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('TRaSH Guides recommended naming conventions'), and the target context ('for your media server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like trash_compare_naming and radarr_get_naming.

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 implies use for fetching TRaSH recommendations but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools (e.g., radarr_get_naming) or provide when-to-use guidance. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are given.

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