read_preset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that by default only non-default settings are shown, and instructs how to include all parameters via include_defaults. This transparently sets expectations about the output's scope. The read-only nature is implicit in 'Show,' but no explicit side-effect or error behavior is mentioned.

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 three sentences, with no filler. The first sentence gives the purpose, the second explains the default behavior, and the third gives parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's core function.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how the output is filtered, and how to override that. It does not mention edge cases like missing presets or explicitly compare with read_current_sound, but the core functionality is well-defined for the complexity level.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains include_defaults thoroughly ('Set include_defaults to see every parameter'), adding meaning beyond the boolean's default. The preset parameter is obvious from context (the tool is read_preset), though the description does not specify the expected format or source; still, combined with the first sentence, it is sufficient.

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 starts with 'Show how a preset is set up, grouped by section,' which clearly states the action (show/read) and resource (a specific preset) with a distinct formatting detail (grouping by section). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_presets (which lists presets, not details) and read_current_sound (which shows current sound, not a preset).

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 when you need to understand a preset's unique configuration: 'Only settings that differ from the synth's defaults are listed, which is what makes the sound what it is.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though that is reasonably inferred from the siblings list.

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