get_preset_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation and clarifies the semantic scope of 'details' with the parenthetical, but it doesn't address potential errors (e.g., nonexistent preset), behavior expectations, or any side effects. For a three-word schema ('Preset name'), the description does add resource-type context, but the behavioral disclosure is minimal—comparable to a middling description for an unannotated tool.

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 13-word sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and wastes zero words. The parenthetical efficiently disambiguates what kind of details are returned. Every word earns its place; this is a model of concise description writing.

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 low-complexity tool (1 param, simple read operation, no enums or nested objects), the combination of description and full schema coverage paints a complete enough picture. The description explains what's returned (exposed properties and functions) and the schema documents the parameter fully. The only gaps are edge behaviors like error handling for invalid preset names, but for a simple getter with no output schema required, this is appropriately complete.

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 description coverage is 100% ('Preset name' for preset_name), so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to—the schema fully documents the only parameter. This is a case where the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction ('Get details of a Remote Control Preset') and the parenthetical ('exposed properties and functions') scopes what 'details' means. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_preset_property and call_preset_function by indicating the full set of exposed items is returned, though it never explicitly names or contrasts these alternatives. The differentiation is functional but implicit, keeping this just shy of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (get_preset_property, call_preset_function, list_presets). While one could infer a workflow of inspecting a preset's exposed members before acting on them, the description never states this. Sibling context suggests a natural 'get info before getting/setting properties' flow, but that connection is left entirely to the reader.

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