list_export_presets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results span two origins (local and project), which is genuinely useful context, but it doesn't clarify whether both sets are always merged or how the project argument changes the scope.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the parameter ambiguity rather than a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the tool is low complexity. The remaining gap is the undefined behavior of the optional project argument, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 0% for the single 'project' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning; instead it only alludes to 'in the project' without stating whether the argument selects which project's presets to include or what the null default resolves to (current project vs. local-only).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export (processor) presets') and adds a scope qualifier ('available locally and in the project'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_formats and list_projects. The parenthetical '(processor)' is slightly cryptic but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus list_formats or how it relates to run_export, which is the downstream consumer of these presets. It also doesn't say whether the tool should be called before run_export or what happens if no presets exist.

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