list_presets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return type as 'raw console response' and implies a read-only listing. However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects, authentication needs, or behavior on invalid input, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with a general statement, valid type list, and Args/Returns sections. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though the docstring format adds some length. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity of a listing tool and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the main behavior: listing presets by type with optional ID filter. It mentions the return value as a string. Minor improvements could include more detail on output format or error handling, but it is largely complete for the task.

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. It explains preset_type with examples ('color', 'position') and preset_id as optional, adding meaning beyond the schema types. The list of valid preset types in the description is crucial since the schema has no enums.

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 clearly states 'list presets of a given type' with specific verb 'list' and resource 'presets'. It distinguishes from siblings like store_preset, delete_preset, apply_preset by focusing on reading rather than modifying. The enumeration of valid preset types adds specificity.

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?

The description provides valid preset types and indicates that preset_id is optional, guiding usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool (e.g., when modification is needed), though the context makes it clear it's for reading only.

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