list_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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists all presets, but does not mention that it is read-only, what the return format is, whether there is any pagination or ordering, or any potential side effects. This minimal disclosure falls short of the transparency expected without 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?

The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured for a simple list operation.

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 low complexity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not specify what the response contains (e.g., names, paths, or other details of the presets), which could leave an agent uncertain about the return format. This is a clear gap but not severe for such a simple tool.

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 the schema is empty, so a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds relevant scope ('all' and 'in the project') which clarifies the fixed behavior, but no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 'List' with a clear resource 'Remote Control Presets' and scope 'in the project'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_preset_info by focusing on enumeration of all presets rather than individual preset details.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: to get all presets, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like get_preset_info, or any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is straightforward, so a 3 for implied usage seems appropriate.

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