get_preset_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds the return JSON shape (active_preset, registered_tools, etc.), disclosing what the agent will receive. This extra context goes beyond the 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a compact JSON key listing. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition.

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 read-only introspection tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool reports, the read-only nature, and the exact response fields. There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of return-value disclosure and does so adequately.

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 parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description need not document parameter semantics because there are none.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates the exact resources: active tool preset, available presets, registered tools, and deferred tools. It clearly differentiates this introspection tool from the many sibling get_* tools and explicitly connects deferred tools to load_tools.

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 makes the tool's context clear: use it to inspect tool registration and preset state. It mentions that deferred tools are loadable via load_tools, providing adjacent guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a directly competing alternative.

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