jar_preset_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone. The verb "List" reasonably implies a read-only, side-effect-free enumeration, but the description says nothing about whether presets persist across sessions, where they are stored, or what the returned entries contain.

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?

A single six-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 and no annotations, the description should ideally tell the agent what a "saved edit preset" is (a named set of pending JAR edits) and roughly what a listing entry looks like, since that context is not available anywhere else. It is adequate for such a simple tool but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to expand on; the baseline for a 0-param tool with 100% schema coverage is 4.

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 gives a specific verb+resource combination ("List" + "saved edit presets") that an agent can act on directly. It does not, however, distinguish this from its obvious siblings jar_preset_save and jar_preset_apply, which share the preset namespace; naming them would have sharpened selection.

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 stated when/when-not guidance and no reference to the lifecycle the sibling tools imply (jar_preset_save creates presets, jar_preset_apply applies them). The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before applying a preset.

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