Get preset config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the side-effect-free behavior ('without selecting it') and the type enumeration, which is useful context. It doesn't disclose return format, error conditions, or prerequisites, but with annotations the bar is lower.

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 sentences, with the main verb and object front-loaded. The second sentence adds the essential type clarification without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 required params, no output schema) and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the core purpose, side-effect behavior, and type restrictions. It could specify the return format in more detail, but 'full settings' is reasonably informative for a simple read tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'type' takes print|filament|printer values and implies 'name' is the preset name, which provides some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on validation, case sensitivity, or how to discover valid names, leaving gaps.

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') while adding a key qualifier ('without selecting it') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_preset and get_config. It also clarifies the allowed types, making the purpose 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?

The description clearly establishes when to use this tool: to inspect a preset's settings without applying it. The phrase 'without selecting it' implies this is a read-only inspection and implies that other tools handle selection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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