list_presets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine scoping fact — results include the user's own presets — which is useful. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or how the query/nozzle filters behave.

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 tight sentence with no waste, and the resource plus its scope are front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded, though it is perhaps too sparse for a 4-parameter tool.

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 values need not be described, but with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and zero usage guidance, the definition leaves the agent guessing about query/nozzle filters and when this tool is the right call. For a parameterized query tool this is noticeably thin.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: 'printer' and the process/filament 'kind' are implied by the text. The 'query' and 'nozzle' parameters are never explained anywhere, leaving half the inputs semantically opaque.

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 resource (presets) and scope (process or filament presets compatible with a given printer, including the user's own). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like list_printers or get_settings, though it never says 'list' explicitly and offers no differentiation statement.

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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only guidance is implicit: it's tied to a printer and a preset kind. Nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this versus get_settings or list_printers when hunting for configuration.

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