start_print

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a precondition (the file must already be on the printer) and that the operation is potentially destructive physically, but it never states the safety/power-on requirements, that this actually begins a physical print, or the failure modes – the only safety warning lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the alias rationale. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 definition is adequate for a compatibility alias whose schema is fully documented, but for a safety-critical action tool with no annotations and no output schema it omits meaningful context: which alias to prefer, expected response, and behavioral side effects.

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 host, filename, bambu_model, bambu_token, and bambu_serial are already documented, including the model-safety warning. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start printing a G-code file') and names the sibling it duplicates ('Alias of start_print_job'), so an agent can distinguish it from unrelated siblings. It stops short of explaining what differentiates it from start_print_job beyond being a compatibility alias, but the core 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?

The alias note implies either this or start_print_job can be used for the same action, which is helpful routing context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over start_print_job, nor any exclusion or precondition for choosing it, leaving selection to inference.

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