list_presets

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the meaningful behavior: the tool yields plain data dicts whose keys (`settings`, `objective`) map onto plan_route arguments. It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect free or list what serialization/shape edge cases exist, so it stops short of fully covering the behavioral surface.

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 dense sentence: the resource and its contents come first, followed by the consumption instruction. No filler, nothing that fails to earn 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?

For a zero-input lister with an output schema already present, the description need not explain return values, and it still adds the crucial consumption mapping. The only minor gap is the absence of any explicit statement that calling it has no side effects.

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 the baseline is 4. The description goes further by naming the two output fields and which plan_route argument each feeds, which is directly actionable semantics even though the output schema already exists.

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 names the resource (settings presets) and enumerates the concrete preset kinds (straight & lanes, plain flow, climb, flat) plus their output form ('as dicts'). It implicitly separates this from siblings by pointing at plan_route as the consumer, though the listing verb itself is only implied.

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?

It tells the agent exactly what to do with the result: pass `settings` to plan_route and `objective` as plan_route's objective argument. That is a clear usage context with no realistic alternatives to disambiguate among siblings, but there is no explicit 'when not to call' or prerequisite statement.

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