get_encoder_presets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that factory preset enumeration is not claimed complete, which is a useful limitation. However, it does not describe what happens if no presets are found, whether it scans recursively, or any permission requirements. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a caveat about factory presets. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and a limitation, but could benefit from stating what the return value looks like (e.g., list of preset paths) and whether it scans subdirectories. Given the simplicity, it 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'directories', which is well-documented as optional absolute directories to scan instead of defaults. The description adds context by mentioning 'tests and advanced setups', which is helpful but not extensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter.

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 the tool discovers readable user Adobe Media Encoder .epr presets from local AME preset folders. It specifies the resource (user AME preset folders) and the action (discovers readable .epr presets). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on presets, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 implies usage for discovering presets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the optional directories parameter for tests and advanced setups, which gives some context, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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