get_export_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. 'Get' implies a read, but it never states that the operation is non-destructive, whether results are ordered, how large the list can be, or what fields each preset contains — all of which matter for a listing tool with no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first establishes scope of the returned set, the second explains the one parameter. The resource is front-loaded with no filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what a preset record looks like (name, format, target app) and roughly how many are returned. It covers scope and filtering adequately but leaves the response shape entirely undefined.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: the single 'filter' param matches against name OR format, illustrated with concrete values spanning formats ('h.264', 'prores', 'wav', 'png') and sources ('youtube'). Only the matching semantics (substring vs. exact, case sensitivity) remain unstated.

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 names a specific resource — export presets installed with Premiere/Media Encoder plus user-created ones — so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (export_sequence, queue_export) it feeds into, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says this is the discovery step before export_sequence/queue_export, nor any when-not-to-use or alternative. The filter examples hint at usage but do not constitute routing guidance.

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