get_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: values are inheritance-merged, name matching is substring-based with printer as a tiebreaker, and long G-code template values are truncated when neither search nor keys is given. It omits the read-only/side-effect profile and any indication of result size or format, but the truncation caveat is genuinely valuable.

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?

Three dense sentences with the return-value semantics front-loaded, followed by matching rules and the filtering options. No filler, though the semicolon-chained second and third clauses read as slightly telegraphic.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should cover more: it never describes the shape of the returned preset data (key/value map? nested?) nor the allowed values for the required kind. It is adequate for filtering but incomplete for a 5-parameter tool returning arbitrary preset contents.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains name (substring match), printer (ambiguous process/filament resolution), search (key substring), and keys (exact keys). However, the required parameter kind is never mentioned and has no enum, leaving an agent to guess its valid values.

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 states precisely what is returned: "Fully resolved (inheritance-merged) preset values", which distinguishes it from list_presets (which only enumerates names). The verb is implicit (inherited from the tool name) rather than stated, but the resource and the resolution semantics are unambiguous.

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?

It gives concrete guidance on choosing between search (substring over keys) and keys (exact match), and on using printer to disambiguate, but it never says when to use this tool instead of list_presets or save_user_preset. Usage for the filtering parameters is clear; usage relative to siblings is only implied.

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