list_presets

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

There are no annotations to carry the behavioral burden, so the description must disclose traits itself. It partially does so by stating the return format (Markdown with categories such as '_base', 'shop'), and listing is naturally read-only. However, it does not mention whether it scans nested directories, errors on missing profiles, or reflects current workspace state.

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 purpose-built lines: one stating scope and source, one stating return type and content. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler.

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 parameterless listing tool this is nearly complete: it names the resource, the source path, and the returned Markdown format. It lacks explicit mention of failure behavior or environment context, but the scope is simple enough that the gap is minor.

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 and no required parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. The 100% schema coverage on an empty properties object supports assigning the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 action ('Lista dostępnych presetów' = list available presets), identifies the exact resource location ('profiles/*.yaml' in instruction-kit), and differentiates from sibling listing tools like list_modules and list_bundles by naming the preset domain. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does or returns.

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 purpose implicitly tells an agent to use this tool when it needs available presets in profiles/*.yaml, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to sibling list tools. With zero parameters and a narrow scope this is minimally adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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