list_hull_presets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description discloses what each result contains. It does not discuss pagination, permissions, ordering, or other operational details, but for a zero-parameter built-in preset listing these gaps are relatively minor.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It tells the agent what is listed and what the listing includes, which is appropriate for this simple tool.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource and previews the key result fields. The main missing context is explicit routing versus sibling tools, but return values are handled by the output schema.

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 has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline credit applies; the description correctly does not invent or misstate any parameter behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list built-in hull archetypes. It also previews the returned content (one-line description and main dimensions). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby tools such as get_hull_spec or list_designs.

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: an agent would call this when it needs available built-in hull presets. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative-tool routing.

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