ytptube_list_presets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool supports pagination and sorting, which is behaviorally relevant but minimally detailed; it does not disclose defaults, response structure, or how exclude_defaults behaves. This is adequate given annotation coverage 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?

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy, achieving high efficiency.

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?

Despite having 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the meaning of exclude_defaults, any default pagination/sorting behavior, or what the response contains. The rich annotations mitigate safety concerns but not the lack of parameter and result context, leaving the tool incompletely specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description must compensate. It mentions pagination and sorting (tying to page, per_page, sort, order), but does not explain exclude_defaults or any parameter specifics, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is insufficient for a full understanding.

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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and resource ('download presets'), and mentions pagination and sorting. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ytptube_get_preset (single retrieval) and other list tools by focusing on presets.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ytptube_get_preset for retrieving a specific preset or ytptube_list_archive/logs/history/tasks for other resource lists. The tool name and sibling list make this somewhat implicit, but the description does not explicitly state usage context or exclusions.

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