get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the response contains (firmware banner, canvas size in mm, job info), which the annotations do not.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the three returned artifacts, with zero filler or repetition of the tool name. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so for three of the likely fields. It stops short of full completeness because it doesn't indicate whether the payload is a fixed shape or what 'last job' means relative to get_job.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level claims are made or 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 names the concrete payload (firmware banner, canvas size in mm, current/last job), which makes the tool's scope identifiable at a glance. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_job, even though 'current/last job' overlaps with that tool's territory, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to call this versus the alternatives; a reader must infer that this is the general status snapshot and get_job is the per-job detail call. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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