counterpart_printer_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful context by asserting 'Sends nothing to the printer,' i.e. no device contact and no side effects, and by disclosing that the payload is a feature-support manifest rather than live telemetry. It does not discuss caching, refresh, or whether the config is read at startup versus per call.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the contract identifier and then enumerates the returned fields, closing with the safety-relevant guarantee. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not describe the response shape, and all parameters are documented in the schema. What remains slight is guidance on when capability flags should gate downstream calls, which matters given the many feature-specific siblings.

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?

All four parameters carry schema descriptions with defaults (host, bambu_model, bambu_token, bambu_serial) at 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description mentions none of them, so it adds no meaning about how overrides interact with the env-derived defaults or why an info call would take a token.

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 contract (counterpart/1) and enumerates exactly what it reports: server name/version, the configured Bambu printer, and which feature families (progress, layer, camera, filament, pause/resume/cancel, print) are supported. That is clearly distinguishable from action siblings like get_printer_status or counterpart_print_progress, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the capability/configuration discovery call to make before invoking feature-dependent tools like camera_stream_start or pause_print. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no routing to an alternative for live printer state (get_printer_status).

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