verify_component_loaded

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond restating the operation. It does not disclose failure behavior (what happens if the component is absent), whether this connects to the printer, or any side effects, though the existence of an output schema does relieve it of explaining return values.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and two parameters, the description leaves too much unsaid: valid component names, the role of the printer parameter, and any behavioral expectations. The output schema covers return values, but the invocation-side gaps remain.

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. The description only implies a component name via the tool's purpose; it never explains acceptable component_name values (e.g. 'klippy', 'virtual_sdcard') or the purpose of the 'printer' parameter, which defaults to 'default'.

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 states a specific verb+resource: verifying whether a Moonraker component is loaded. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate from the visible sibling verify_extra_loaded, which follows the same verification pattern for a different target.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. With verify_extra_loaded in the sibling list, an agent would benefit from knowing whether to call this for components vs. extras in a given situation, and that distinction is absent.

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