get_printer_status

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 behavioral disclosure, and it does almost none. It never says the operation is read-only, whether Klipper must be running or connected, what happens with an empty objects value, or how the query behaves for offline printers.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally fine. But brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency, so it sits at the minimum-viable level.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and that is the only gap the description is excused from. With zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this query tool confidently.

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 0% for both parameters, and neither 'objects' (a string defaulting to empty) nor 'printer' is explained. The description's word 'objetos' loosely gestures at the objects parameter but gives no format (comma-separated? single name?), no valid object names, and no indication of what the printer identifier expects.

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 verb (consulta) and resource (estado de objetos de Klipper), so the general purpose is inferable. However, the name promises 'printer status' while the description talks about arbitrary 'Klipper objects', and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like list_objects, get_server_info or get_print_progress. An agent cannot tell which of those to pick from this text alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative among the many closely related siblings (list_objects, get_print_progress, get_server_info). The agent is left to guess when this tool is the right choice.

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