pbi_list_style_presets

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It indicates a read-only operation ('return the catalogue') but doesn't disclose potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Minimal but adequate for a simple list tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word is meaningful.

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 no parameters and a simple output (with an output schema available), the description is complete enough. It could mention that the output schema provides full metadata details, but not necessary.

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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying 'built-in presets' and 'summary metadata', which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns a catalogue of built-in presets with summary metadata, using a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like pbi_list_format_presets by specifying 'style presets'.

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?

Usage is implied as a simple listing tool. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives like pbi_list_format_presets mentioned for differentiation.

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