inspect_export_preset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-mutating nature ("without writing files"), but says nothing about what happens with an unknown/invalid preset, whether texture_set resolution changes the returned map names, or whether resolution requires an open project. For a zero-annotation tool this is a thin disclosure.

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?

One tight sentence with the verb and the key non-mutation constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema or wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the tool is genuinely simple. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the definition leaves an agent without enough to know how texture_set alters the result or how failures present.

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 and does not. It accounts only for "preset" ("Resolve an export preset") and never mentions texture_set, leaving the optional second parameter's meaning, format, or effect on the previewed map names entirely undocumented.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Resolve") with a specific resource ("export preset") and states the scope of what is returned ("preview its map names"). The phrase "without writing files" implicitly separates it from export_textures/export_with_profile, though it never names a sibling outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight inspection step before an actual export. There is no explicit "use this when..." or "use export_textures instead when..." routing, and no mention of prerequisites such as the preset needing to already exist.

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