List presets (from disk)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. Description adds context about the read-only nature, specific paths, and the inability to load presets via API. While transparency is high, it could mention error cases or performance, but overall adds value beyond 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?

Three sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main action. Somewhat dense but well-organized. Could be slightly more structured, but no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no required, output schema exists) and rich annotations, the description fully covers the needed context: modes, limitations, and purpose. No gaps identified.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant value by explaining the dual behavior of the optional plugin_filter parameter: omitting it yields a summary, using it yields a full list. This enhances the schema's basic description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads preset names from disk with specific paths, and distinguishes two modes (summary vs. full list). It differentiates itself from siblings like fl_suggest_preset and fl_plugin_get_params.

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?

Explicitly notes that FL cannot load presets via API, so the tool is for suggestions. Provides guidance on when to use without filter (summary) vs. with filter (full list), and hints at workflow ('you load the named preset, then Claude can tweak it').

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