explain_zpl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only assessable sections count and others are marked 'not assessed', and that findings depend on the label size. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior and limitations, though it doesn't mention error handling or the exact return structure.

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 sentences, no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the key usage tip is placed at the end. Every word earns its place.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description explains the report's scope and scoring honesty. It covers the main concerns an agent would have, but could arguably mention that the report might be lengthy or that it returns a structured result. Still, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to decide to call it.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by emphasizing the critical role of width_in and height_in ('Pass the real label size') and implicitly tying them to the size/DPI section. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description info.

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 tool produces a 'Full sectioned health report for a ZPL label' and enumerates specific aspects (syntax, size/DPI, orientation, barcodes, fonts, memory). It distinguishes itself from siblings like zpl_validate (which likely only validates) and zpl_preview (rendering) by emphasizing a comprehensive diagnostic report with an honest scoring mechanism.

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 gives an important usage hint ('Pass the real label size — findings depend on it') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like zpl_validate or zpl_compatibility. It implies it's for a detailed health assessment, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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