plugins_get_current_preset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: the tool returns only when a uniqueness condition holds. However, it does not state what happens when that condition is not met—whether it returns an empty result, errors, or falls back. Since the annotations cover the core non-destructive nature, the description contributes partial context, earning a 3.

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 with no filler: 'Read FL's current preset name and an index only when it is unique.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, the phrase 'only when it is unique' introduces ambiguity that undermines clarity; it could have been clearer without extra length, but the structure itself is efficient.

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?

With a complete input schema (100% parameter coverage) and an output schema available, the description does not need to re-explain return types. However, it leaves open the critical case of what happens when the uniqueness condition fails, and it provides no guidance on when to select this tool relative to sibling preset tools. These gaps make the description incomplete for fully correct invocation, so a middle score is warranted.

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%, so the input schema fully defines the single 'target' parameter with its two variant object shapes and discriminators. The description does not need to repeat parameter mechanics and offers no semantic elaboration beyond the schema. By the rubric's baseline, the description adds no parameter-specific insight, so 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 and resource: 'Read FL's current preset name and an index'. It conveys the tool's purpose and includes a distinguishing qualifier, 'only when it is unique'. However, the phrase 'only when it is unique' is ambiguous—whether it refers to the preset name, the index, or the preset itself—and does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like plugins_get_plugin_preset_count or plugins_list_presets.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plugins_get_plugin_preset_count or plugins_list_presets. It only states an oblique condition ('when unique') without explaining what circumstances warrant this tool or when a different preset-related tool should be chosen. No exclusions or alternative selection criteria are provided.

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