list_print_hosts

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 reads as a read-only listing operation and explicitly discloses that no secrets are returned, which is a meaningful disclosure for a credentials-adjacent tool. It stops short of describing what connection data is included or whether any host state is required.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the protocol scope. Nothing redundant, though the 'No secrets.' fragment is terse to the point of being cryptic.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers scope and one behavioral caveat. Adding a brief note on what fields come back, or how it relates to list_printers, would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 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?

The description names the resource precisely ('networked printers configured in PrusaSlicer') and enumerates the supported host protocols (OctoPrint, Moonraker/Klipper, PrusaLink), which tells an agent exactly what set is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_printers, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_printers, get_printer_status, or get_setting. The agent must infer from the name and the protocol list alone.

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