trash_get_naming

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses the safe verb 'Get' indicating a read operation, which is good, but it does not disclose whether this retrieves live data from an external source, whether it is cached, or what format the response takes. It adds little beyond the verb and parameter context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states what the tool does and for whom. It avoids verbosity, repetition of schema details, and includes only useful context (the media server list). Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 fully documented params, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the purpose and supported media servers. However, it does not describe the return format or whether the output is a raw string or a structured object, which would be helpful in the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters: service ('Which service') and mediaServer ('Which media server you use'). The description repeats the media server values but does not add deeper semantics, such as the meaning of 'standard' or how the chosen service affects the naming recommendations. 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 begins with a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'TRaSH Guides recommended naming conventions'. It also mentions the target context (Plex, Emby, Jellyfin, or standard), distinguishing it from siblings like 'sonarr_get_naming' which retrieves local settings, and 'trash_compare_naming' which compares naming setups.

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 usage by stating that it fetches recommended conventions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No references to sibling tools or exclusions are provided, so the guidance is only implicit, not direct.

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