timeweb_list_server_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. It only states 'List available server configuration presets' with no details about the return format, pagination, auth requirements, or side effects. For a read-only listing operation, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. No redundancy or filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It earns its place with zero waste.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with no output schema. The description adequately conveys the action ('List available server configuration presets') but does not explain what a preset contains, how many might be returned, or any filtering options. It's minimally sufficient but lacks depth for a complete understanding.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with the 'format' parameter described as 'Output format: markdown for human-readable or json for machine-readable'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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' and a specific resource 'available server configuration presets', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_database_presets or list_s3_presets. Even without explicit alternative naming, the resource is clear and unambiguous.

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 purpose implies this is used to see available presets before creating a server, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. No mention of not using it for databases or other resources, though the name itself differentiates. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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