Get preset config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that it does not change the selected preset ('without selecting it') and by noting the build requirement (`[needs preset-CRUD build]`), which is useful for understanding availability.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the action, scope, type values, and a prerequisite in an extremely compact form.

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 simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and non-mutating behavior. It does not describe the exact structure of returned settings or error handling, but given no output schema and siblings, it is reasonably complete. Slight room for improvement in explaining what 'full settings' includes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides enum-like values for 'type' (print|filament|printer) and implies 'name' means the preset name via 'named preset'. However, it does not fully explain both parameters or their relationships (e.g., that 'name' must exist for the given 'type'), leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('full settings of a named preset') with a clear scope ('without selecting it'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like select_preset and list_presets by emphasizing non-selection and full settings.

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 implies usage when you need to inspect a preset's settings without changing selection, contrasting with selection tools. It also mentions a prerequisite ('needs preset-CRUD build'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving a small gap for explicit guidance.

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