preset_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool inspects file contents without loading them and reports dependency requirements, but says nothing about failure behavior for malformed or non-preset paths, which is the main behavioral risk for a file-reading tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target resource, followed by a compact enumeration of the outputs. Nothing is redundant and there is no filler.

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 explained, and the description still previews the useful contents. For a read-only single-path tool that is nearly sufficient; only path formatting and error handling for invalid preset files are left unaddressed.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone says only 'path'. The description partially compensates by identifying the accepted file types (.adg, .adv), but it never specifies path format, relative vs absolute, or whether a Live browser URI is acceptable.

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 gives a specific verb ('Look inside') and a specific resource ('.adg rack or .adv device preset'), then enumerates what is surfaced: devices/chains, macros, required plug-ins and Max for Live devices, and Suite dependency. This makes it naturally distinct from load_rack, list_racks, or get_plugin_presets, though it never names a sibling to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 file-extension framing suggests inspecting a preset on disk before loading it. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no exclusion of the load_* alternatives, and no stated prerequisite such as whether the path must be absolute or the file must exist.

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