explain_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying that Pro presets return 'full pro_unlock metadata (trial command, checkout URL, price, money-back guarantee)', which goes beyond the bare tool name. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the term 'explain' and the nature of the described outputs make non-mutation apparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and key covered aspects, while the second adds a meaningful conditional detail about Pro presets. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers the core purpose, key features, and special behavior for Pro presets, which is sufficient given a single simple parameter and the presence of an output schema. It could mention a usage workflow (e.g., 'use after list_presets') but is not incomplete without it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly identifies the sole 'name' parameter as a preset name through the phrase 'named preset' and adds meaning by distinguishing Pro presets. However, it does not provide explicit parameter documentation, such as example names or format, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 'Describe' and the resource 'a named preset', and lists specific aspects ('exclude names count, exclude patterns, preserve_param_names, docstring handling') that differentiate it from siblings like list_presets. It is immediately clear what this tool accomplishes.

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 description provides enough context to infer the tool is used for explaining preset details, and the presence of list_presets implies an alternative for listing. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor a direct reference to sibling tools, leaving it to the agent to infer.

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