getPrintfiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns, but does not disclose potential side effects (likely none for a getter), required permissions, output format, error behavior, or whether the result is a single object or list. This is a significant gap given the lack of annotation support.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and lists the key info types in parentheses. It is concise with no filler or unnecessary words, earning high marks for structure.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the purpose and the kind of information returned. However, it does not specify whether the response is a single object or an array, nor cover edge cases like invalid product IDs or empty results. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a description for product_id ('The product ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but it does not need to compensate since the schema is sufficient.

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 action ('Get printfile info') and the resource ('a product'), and further specifies the type of info returned (dimensions, DPI, placement areas). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getProducts, getProduct, and getFile, which target different resources or use cases.

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 the tool is for retrieving printfile details, providing clear context for when it would be used. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getProductVariant or getFile, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required product_id.

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