list_printers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing printers) and describes filter options, which is sufficient for a read-only list operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return format nuances, though these are minimal for this tool. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the search scope and status examples.

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 compact and front-loaded, using two sentences plus an Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no unnecessary fluff. The structure is clear and easily scannable.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the operation and parameters, and the output is understood via the schema. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but these are minor gaps for a list operation. The description could be slightly richer by mentioning that it returns all printers when no filters are applied, but the 'List all printers' wording already covers this.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for both parameters: 'search: Search by title, manufacturer, serial number, or notes' and 'status: Filter by status (e.g. 'Active', 'Under Repair', 'Retired').' This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 tool's function: 'List all printers with optional search and status filter.' It uses a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'printers,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_materials and get_printer.

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 implies usage (e.g., listing all printers vs. getting a single printer with get_printer) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The optional search and status filter suggest flexibility, but no direct comparison to siblings is provided.

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