gsa_print_view

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. It does not disclose whether 'print' sends output to a physical printer, a file, or the screen, whether it has side effects, or what state it requires - all material for an ambiguous verb like 'print'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean. But brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency - the one sentence does not earn its place as adequate guidance.

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 explained. Still, with no annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no usage context for a tool sitting in a dense family of view/output operations, the definition is not complete enough for reliable selection or invocation.

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 single required parameter 'option' has 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description never mentions it. The agent has no way to know what values 'option' accepts or what it selects, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a verb ('print') and a resource ('graphics/output view(s)'), which is enough to identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling view/output tools (gsa_update_views, gsa_save_view_to_file, gsa_output_*), and the parenthetical 'graphics/output view(s)' leaves the exact target ambiguous.

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, what preconditions apply (e.g., an active view or initialized output), or how it relates to alternatives such as gsa_output_extract or gsa_save_view_to_file. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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