print_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It thoroughly describes features (code fences, mermaid, LaTeX math, checkboxes, tables, remote images) and the built-in minimalist stylesheet, plus important constraints on continuous flow (incomplete chunks rejected, FEED button instructions). Notable disclosure of type-size readability tradeoffs. Minor gap: no mention of where output physically goes beyond 'thermal printer', but the tool name and print terminology cover that.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The markdown param description is long but each clause adds genuine behavioral value (advanced features, stylesheet specifics, pointers to alternatives). The flow and size explanations are thorough but tightly written. Slightly long overall, yet every sentence earns its place given no annotations exist.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must cover complexity. For a tool rendering arbitrary markdown with advanced features (mermaid, LaTeX), it explains the styling and feature set well, covers all four parameters, and names alternatives and prerequisites. Missing only a note on what the return/result looks like (e.g., printed confirmation), but for a printing tool this is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so params are already documented. The description adds value through guidance beyond the schema: recommending 'medium' as the default size with clear when-to-use guidance for large/small, and explaining the continuous flow behavior (zero margins, no trailing feed, joining chunks). The feed_lines param default behavior in continuous flow is also clarified. Not a full 5 because the markdown format doc essentially mirrors the schema, but combined schema+description form a coherent picture.

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?

Description states specific verb+resource ('Render markdown... and print it on the thermal printer') and clearly scopes behavior to the built-in ticket style. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling print_html for custom design, matching the sibling tool names in the context.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use this tool ('Quick path for notes/lists/receipts') and gives an exclusion with the alternative ('use print_html for custom design'). The markdown param description also reinforces this with 'Fastest way to print; use the html tools for full custom design' and 'Call design_guide first for size/style guidance.'

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