trash_compare_naming

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, what data it accesses beyond naming configuration, what the output looks like, or potential side effects. 'Compare' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated, and there's no mention of required permissions or error conditions.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and adds a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits any information about the return format, success/failure behavior, or the scope of the comparison. It covers the essential purpose and a prerequisite, but for a tool that compares against external recommendations, users would benefit from knowing what the comparison output contains.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a brief description ('Which service', 'Which media server you use'). The description itself adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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 tool's function: 'Compare your naming configuration against TRaSH Guides recommendations.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like trash_compare_profile (profile comparison) and trash_get_naming (naming retrieval).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires the corresponding *arr service to be configured') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like trash_get_naming or trash_compare_profile. It implies usage for validation against TRaSH recommendations but lacks exclusionary or alternative guidance.

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