trash_get_quality_sizes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states what the tool gets, with no mention of side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or response behavior. Fails to disclose default values or error cases.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource. Could be slightly improved by adding a brief usage hint without increasing length significantly.

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?

Given zero annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return value format or default behavior. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's information, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional meaning or context provided.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'TRaSH Guides recommended min/max/preferred sizes for each quality level'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like trash_get_naming or trash_get_profile. However, it could be more explicit about what 'quality level' refers to.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not provide context, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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