listPresets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so for the key traits: it declares the operation read-only and enumerates returned fields (name, version, description). It doesn't discuss errors or empty states, but for a zero-parameter read tool the risk surface is minimal.

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?

Three short clauses: what it lists, what it returns, and how presets get created. Every sentence earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 no-argument read tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the meaning of the resource, the field set, read-only status, and the fact that this tool cannot create presets.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly says nothing about filtering inputs, matching the empty schema.

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 and resource ('List the presets currently active') and even defines what a preset is in this system ('steering this agent's operating instructions'), which no sibling tool name conveys. An agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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 final sentence explicitly rules out the obvious wrong assumption by saying presets are installed via the `maz preset install` CLI, not by agents — a clear exclusions signal. There are no true alternatives among the siblings, so the absence of a 'use X instead' pointer is not a gap.

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