Run an audit query preset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type ('capture hits with line numbers'), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, whether an index is required, or error behavior. Since this appears to be a search-like tool, the lack of an explicit read-only hint or prerequisite note leaves some behavioral gaps.

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, compact sentence that puts the main verb and resource first and includes a useful pointer to list_presets. Every word earns its place with no repetition or 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with 2 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear action and output expectation. It also points to list_presets for discovering valid preset names. Missing details like prerequisites or error cases are minor given the schema already documents parameters and the tool is straightforward.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little by connecting 'named preset' to the name parameter and 'source file' to file, but it does not explain the 'language' override beyond the schema's own description. The schema carries the parameter semantics, so no additional compensation is needed.

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 states the verb 'Run' and the resource: a named preset against a source file, with a specific outcome: 'capture hits with line numbers.' It distinguishes itself from list_presets by saying 'see list_presets,' implying that this tool executes a preset rather than listing them. It does not explicitly name what it is not compared to siblings like ast_search, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is implied: to run a named preset, you use this tool. The reference to 'see list_presets' hints at a workflow of choosing a preset first, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ast_search or find_references. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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