list_presets

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the catalog contains both built-in looks and user presets and can be searched by mood, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe return contents, sorting, or whether user presets are mixed with built-ins.

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 compact, two sentences, and front-loads the catalog contents before the search hint. The parenthetical list of examples is somewhat long but earns its place by making the semantic-look category concrete.

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?

With no output schema, two parameters, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should do more to explain what is returned and how kind/query interact. It covers the general domain but leaves the agent guessing about the enum semantics and the result shape, which is a significant gap for a discovery tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning but largely does not. It mentions built-in looks and user presets, loosely mapping to kind=look/user, but never explains the kind enum (all/look/user) or the difference between listing all versus only looks or only user presets. The query parameter is only hinted at with 'Search by mood words'.

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 identifies the resource as built-in looks and user presets and implies searching by mood words, but it never states the action (list/search) explicitly or distinguishes this from siblings like apply_preset, save_preset, or delete_preset. An agent can infer the purpose from the name plus examples, but the description itself is more a catalog blurb than a clear verb+resource statement.

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?

It gives only a thin hint for the query parameter ('Search by mood words') and no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as apply_preset. There is no indication whether to use this to discover presets before applying one, or how it relates to save_preset/delete_preset.

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