find_presets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait — 'Returns ranked matches' — which tells the agent results are ordered by relevance rather than exhaustive. It does not clarify whether matching tolerates typos, whether it is read-only, or how many results come back.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The examples consume space but earn it by teaching the input space, and the return behavior is appended last.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input vocabulary, and result ordering ('ranked matches'). Only minor gaps remain — no result count or tie-breaking detail — but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents 'vibe' as a single word or short phrase, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top by giving concrete keyword→preset examples ('glow' → Aurora, Bloom), which clarifies the expected input vocabulary beyond the schema's generic wording.

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 and resource ('fuzzy-find presets') plus the matching dimension ('vibe / aesthetic / use-case keyword'). The illustrative mappings make the tool's behavior concrete. It does not explicitly name the sibling list_presets to contrast fuzzy search against exhaustive listing, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implied by 'fuzzy-find' and the keyword examples, suggesting this is the search path versus list_presets' enumeration, but no when-to-use condition or alternative is stated explicitly. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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