plugins_list_presets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read', 'without changing', and 'deterministic'. The determinism language adds a slight extra guarantee beyond idempotence. No negative side effects or failures are mentioned, but those are not required given the 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 containing an action, a resource, and a constraint. It is front-loaded and without vacuous filler, making the tool instantaneously easy to parse.

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 an output schema available and exhaustively described parameters, the description doesn't need to spell out return values. It could mention that targets include mixer effects or channel generators, but the schema already handles that. The tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly despite the terse summary.

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%, with every parameter (target, limit, start, include_current, include_empty_names) already meaningfully described in the input schema. The description's 'page' concept echoes start/limit but adds no deeper semantic, so baseline 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 clearly specifies the action ('Read') and the resource ('one deterministic preset page'), plus the critical constraint 'without changing the plug-in'. This clearly distinguishes it from mutating siblings like fl_select_plugin_preset or plugins_load, and from other plugin inspection tools like plugins_get_current_preset or plugins_scan_parameters.

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?

'Without changing the plug-in' signals a read-only use case and implies that any tool modifying the plugin should be chosen instead, providing clear context. However, no explicit alternative tool names or 'use when/use instead' guidance is given, so it earns strong but not top marks.

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