trash_list_custom_formats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only intent through 'List' and mentions the filter capability, but it does not describe output format, external dependencies, or any limitations. The minimal context is sufficient for a listing operation but lacks depth beyond what the name already implies.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two sentences to state the purpose and filter options. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 a simple list operation with well-documented parameters, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what is returned. It does not mention return structure or source of the TRaSH Guides data, leaving a gap for a tool with no annotations or 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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by enumerating the valid category values (hdr, audio, resolution, source, streaming, anime, unwanted, release, language), which are not specified in the schema. This enrichment for the category parameter elevates the score.

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 it lists TRaSH Guides custom formats, using the verb 'List' and identifying the specific resource. It also mentions the optional category filter, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sonarr_list_custom_formats or trash_list_profiles, so it stops short of a 5.

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 what the tool does and listing the filter categories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is present but not directly tied to decision-making, so it falls into the 'implied usage' category.

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