presets_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payload content ('group/layer names and per-type defaults') and the read-only nature is implied by 'List', but nothing is said about ordering, whether presets are project- or installation-scoped, or whether the catalog can change. Adequate but not rich, and it is a harmless zero-parameter read so the risk is low.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what is listed and where it can be used) is front-loaded.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of information and it covers purpose, output categories, and consumer tool. It is slightly thin on the shape of the returned records ('per-type defaults' is vague), but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description uses the sentence well by explaining what the parameter values it returns are for, linking preset names to drawing_new's preset argument, rather than wasting space documenting nonexistent inputs.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('layer presets'), and it names the consuming call (drawing_new(preset=...)), which lets an agent place it among the many *list siblings. It stops just short of an explicit contrast with sibling list tools like drawing_list or scan_list, all of which are structurally similar.

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 phrase 'usable in drawing_new(preset=...)' effectively states the use case: call this to discover valid preset values before invoking drawing_new. It does not state any when-not condition or alternative source of presets, but the implied workflow is unambiguous.

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