design_list_fill_presets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, and it discloses that results include strategy parameters, but it says nothing about whether the list is exhaustive, ordered, or how large it is, and never explicitly confirms read-only behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return content could be characterized; it only gestures at 'strategy parameters' without saying what fields a preset exposes or how to feed them into design_fill_region. For a trivial zero-argument lister this is adequate but not complete.

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 schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to explain; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly implies a single, argument-free global listing.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ('List all built-in fill presets'), and it adds that entries carry 'strategy parameters', which separates it from the mutating siblings design_fill_region and design_update_fill. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Use is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before design_fill_region or design_update_fill, but the description never says when to call it or what to do with the results. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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