get_current_presets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful semantic distinction — these are profiles, not the model — but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what happens if no presets are selected. For a simple getter the gap is moderate, but the description could add more behavioral clarity.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core definition is front-loaded, and the clarifying contrast with get_selection is placed exactly where it is useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly: it names the exact data returned and distinguishes it from a likely point of confusion. It does not detail the return format, but that is not essential given the simplicity of the operation.

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 zero parameters, which is the baseline for a score of 4. There are no parameter semantics to describe, and the description does not need to add any. The schema already fully covers the empty parameter set.

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 exactly what is returned — the currently selected process, filament, and machine presets in OrcaSlicer. It also clarifies that these are profiles, not model selections, which distinguishes it from get_selection. This is a specific verb-plus-resource definition that an agent can act on.

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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: 'for what the user has clicked on and which plate they are looking at, call get_selection.' This provides clear routing to a relevant alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_presets or get_preset, but 'currently selected' makes the intended use case reasonably clear.

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