list_presets

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

No annotations are provided, but 'List' inherently signals a side-effect-free read, and the output schema already documents the return shape and the filter-chain fields. That said, it says nothing about static vs. live data, ordering, or whether the preset catalog can change.

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 sentence with the verb and the differentiating detail (the exact ffmpeg filter chains) front-loaded and no filler. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema that documents return values, the description covers what is produced and is sufficient to call correctly. It could be slightly more complete by noting the presets' role in selecting a conversion preset.

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; baseline 4 applies. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly does not invent parameters.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a concrete resource ('Moviola presets') and the payload detail ('exact ffmpeg filter chains') make the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the potentially related sibling index_chains, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 says what the tool returns but never states when to call it, e.g., to discover a preset name before invoking convert_media. No alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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