trash_get_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns comprehensive profile details including custom format scores and quality settings, which sets expectations for the response. It does not mention potential side effects or error cases, but as a read-only get operation, the lack of such info is acceptable.

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 conveys the essential action and outcome without any fluff. Every phrase adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the types of data included (custom format scores, quality settings, implementation details). However, it does not describe the response structure or any nested objects, which may leave an agent uncertain about how to parse the result. The tool's complexity is moderate, so the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'profile' includes examples and 'service' specifies the enum values. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline score 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: retrieving a specific TRaSH Guides quality profile, and enumerates the included data (custom format scores, quality settings, implementation details). It distinguishes from sibling tools like trash_list_profiles (which likely lists profiles) and trash_compare_profile (which compares them) by emphasizing 'specific'.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need details for a single, known profile. The 'specific' modifier implies this is for fetching one profile, contrasting with listing all profiles. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use other tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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