trash_compare_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Shows' results, implying a read-only operation, and lists the categories of output. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it describe authentication needs or any potential side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Compare your quality profile against TRaSH Guides recommendations'). Every sentence provides value: the first states what it does, the second adds output details and a prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 three-parameter comparison tool, the description covers the core purpose, the output content, and a key prerequisite. Since there is no output schema, the description partially fills that gap by naming the shown categories. It could be more complete by specifying the output structure, but it is adequate for this complexity level.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing that profileId is 'your quality profile' and trashProfile is a 'TRaSH profile name'. It does not introduce new parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('your quality profile' against 'TRaSH Guides recommendations'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like trash_compare_naming. It also enumerates specific outputs (missing custom formats, scoring differences, quality settings), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is for comparing quality profiles against TRaSH Guides. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires the corresponding *arr service to be configured'), which helps the agent know when this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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