describe_preset

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Description explicitly states 'human-readable summary' and lists parameter categories, implying no side effects (read-only). Could be more explicit about being non-destructive, but adequate.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with purpose, zero wasted words. Structure efficiently conveys tool function and scope.

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?

Tool has simple interface (1 param) and an output schema (not shown). Description covers the key scope (all parameter categories). Could mention read-only nature or return format, but given the output schema handles return details, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0% for the single parameter 'preset_path'. Description does not elaborate on the parameter (e.g., format, allowed values, examples). Despite the parameter name being self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's name.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'human-readable summary of an existing preset's sound-shaping parameters', listing categories (oscillators, filters, etc.). Clearly distinguishes from siblings generate_preset, edit_preset, list_parameters by being a read-only summary tool.

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?

Description clearly states when to use: to get a human-readable summary of a preset's parameters. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling list and description imply usage context (summary vs. generation, editing, or listing).

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