describe_preset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Summary' implies a read-only operation, but the description never explicitly states it makes no changes, requires no special permissions, or has any side effects or limitations. It also does not mention whether the preset must be loaded or active.

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 two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and an Args section for the parameter. There is no filler, though the indented multi-line Args formatting is slightly awkward for such a small definition.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is well covered. However, for a tool with three siblings, the definition omits how it relates to list_parameters and provides no explicit read-only assurance, leaving modest gaps.

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 compensate fully for the single parameter, and it does: it explains that the value is a preset name as shown in Serum's browser, that a partial name works if unique, and that a full path to an .fxp file is also accepted. This is material information an agent would otherwise not have.

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 states a specific verb ('human-readable summary') and resource ('an existing preset's current settings and mod matrix'), so an agent knows exactly what it reports. It implicitly distinguishes read-only inspection from the write-oriented siblings (write_patch, edit_patch), but does not explicitly differentiate it from list_parameters, which likely also inspects a preset's parameters.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_parameters, write_patch, or edit_patch, nor any stated preconditions. The only contextual detail is about the input format, which belongs to parameter semantics rather than usage.

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