host_presets_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral fact: results come from the *running host's loaded* presets rather than on-disk profiles, which is a real distinction from profiles_list. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior, or how the default limit of 100 affects results.

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 no filler. The resource and host scope arrive immediately, which is exactly what an agent scanning for a list tool needs.

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 values need not be described. Still, for a paginated, filtered listing with four undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description should say something about the `kind` value domain and pagination defaults to be call-ready.

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 coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the four parameters. The mention of 'process, printer or filament' hints at the accepted values for `kind`, but `limit`, `offset`, and `query` (a substring filter versus exact match?) are entirely undocumented in both places.

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 (loaded process/printer/filament presets) scoped to the running host, which is more precise than the sibling name alone suggests. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like host_preset_read or profiles_list, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer host_preset_read for full preset contents, and no note on how this relates to profiles_list. The agent gets a purpose but no routing logic among the many preset/profile/settings siblings.

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