anim_preset_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered. The description adds scope information beyond that — which preset sources are included and which are excluded — but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or return shape. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The inclusion scope is front-loaded, and the exclusion/alternative routing follows immediately, which is the natural reading order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (built-in and saved presets) and where the excluded category lives. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though a note on whether the query is a substring or token match would close the last gap.

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 100%, and the single optional 'query' parameter is documented in the schema as matching words in name or description. The description adds no filtering syntax, matching semantics, or empty-query behavior beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists animation presets') and immediately partitions the resource into built-in presets versus ones saved via anim_preset_save. It also carves out a category it does not cover (Daz-purchased animated presets), so an agent can distinguish it from anim_preset_save and content_search without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance for one important case: animated presets bought for Daz live in the content library and should be reached with content_search(kind="animation"). That is an explicit alternative with its triggering condition. It stops short of saying when to prefer this list over other preset operations (e.g., apply/save), but the context is clear.

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