list_presets

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait — that it also returns the last loaded preset for each direction — but says nothing about safety, permissions, ordering, or whether results can be empty.

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 filler; the primary action is stated first and the extra return-content detail follows. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must define the return shape, and it only partially does: it names what is listed but not ordering, emptiness, or whether presets are global versus scoped to a plugin instance. Adequate for a parameterless read, but there is room a richer description could fill.

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. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit, and coverage in the (empty) schema is trivially complete.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved input and output presets'), and adds scope detail that the name alone does not carry ('plus the last loaded one for each'). It is naturally distinguishable from siblings load_preset, read_preset, and save_preset, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

Nothing states when to call this rather than read_preset or load_preset, nor any preconditions. Discovery-before-loading is only weakly implied by the verb 'List'; an agent gets no routing guidance.

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