list_export_presets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait that no files are written, plus the two preset sources. It omits other traits such as whether shelf presets require a running/refreshed shelf or whether results are paginated.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and the non-mutating guarantee both land immediately.

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 and there are no parameters, so the description only needs to convey scope and side-effect profile, which it does. Only the relationship to sibling tools (inspect_export_preset, list_export_profiles) is left implicit.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no spurious parameter discussion.

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 (List) and resource (export presets) with the scope qualifier 'built-in and shelf'. The clause 'without exporting files' separates it from export_textures/export_with_profile, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from inspect_export_preset.

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: the 'without exporting files' phrase signals a discovery step before exporting, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as inspect_export_preset for details or list_export_profiles for profiles.

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