get_preset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: omitting the parameter reads the active preset's live edit buffer including unsaved edits, while an explicit preset index returns the stored version. That unsaved-vs-stored distinction is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the default-target nuance. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by specifying a full effect chain with parameters in real units. Minor gaps remain: ordering of effects and the shape of each parameter entry are unspecified, but an agent can call it correctly from what is given.

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 0% for the single 'preset' integer, so the schema alone gives no meaning. The description compensates by explaining the omitted-parameter default (active preset) but never explains what the 1-80 integer represents (preset slot index) or how to discover valid values, leaving half the parameter semantics undocumented.

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 resource ('full effect chain of a preset') and adds a distinguishing quality ('every parameter in real units'), so an agent knows this returns a detailed parameter dump rather than a summary. It never names a sibling tool, so differentiation from get_settings or list_effect_catalog is left to inference.

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 when to use it (you want the whole chain with engineering-unit values) and clarifies the default target, but gives no explicit when-not or pointer to an alternative such as list_effect_catalog or get_settings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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