get_encoder_presets

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

Annotations already indicate read-only idempotent behavior. The description adds context that presets are discovered by scanning .epr files shipped on disk, explaining the static nature and API limitation. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and key usage, followed by explanation of method.

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 the simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema, good annotations), the description fully covers purpose, usage, output structure (list with .epr path), and limitations (scanning shipped files). No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the description of the format parameter in the schema is identical to the tool description? Actually, the parameter description is separate. The tool description does not add extra meaning for the parameter, but schema already covers it, so baseline 3.

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 lists available Adobe Media Encoder export presets and provides the .epr path for use with export_sequence or encode_project_item. It distinguishes from siblings by explaining the API limitation and the scanning mechanism.

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 to get preset paths before using export_sequence or encode_project_item, and explains why this tool is needed (API limitation). No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is clear.

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