list_presets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that LED models are illustrative and not measured (referencing spec 5.7), and states the return behavior when a name is given (SPD + metadata). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but that is implied by a list/fetch operation. The data-quality caveat adds valuable context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the list of names and the behavioral distinction. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

The tool has an output schema (per context signals), so return structure is already covered. The description covers the optional parameter semantics, the data-quality caveat, and the two usage modes. For a simple list/get tool, this is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema only defines a nullable string 'name' with no description (0% coverage). The description explains that omitting it lists all presets, while providing it fetches that specific preset's SPD and metadata. This fully clarifies the parameter's effect, adding meaning that the schema lacks.

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 action (list/fetch) on illuminant presets, enumerates the exact preset names, and clarifies it covers CIE standards plus illustrative LED models. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'presets' tool by its focus on illuminant presets, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly describes two usage modes: call with no name to list all presets, or provide a name to fetch a specific preset's SPD and metadata. It lists the valid names and the illustrative caveat. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'presets' tool, but the self-contained instructions are sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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