list_presets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose two non-obvious traits — user presets are returned first, and compatibility filtering is applied when printer is supplied. It does not say whether include_incompatible overrides that filtering, nor describe the shape of returned presets.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining two sentences each address specific parameters with concrete examples. Dense but essentially waste-free.

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?

For a four-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits include_incompatible entirely and gives no hint about what a returned preset contains. Adequate for calling the tool, incomplete for predicting its results.

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; it gives meaning to kind (valid values), search (case-insensitive substring with examples), and printer (compatibility filter). include_incompatible is never mentioned, and the rule that printer only applies to process/filament leaves its exact effect ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List selectable presets') and enumerates the three valid kinds (machine | process | filament), which the schema does not do. It is implicitly distinguishable from the singular sibling get_preset, but never explicitly says so.

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?

'For process/filament pass printer to keep only compatible ones' is a real conditional usage rule for a parameter, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_preset or about the interaction with include_incompatible.

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