print_label_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses monochrome conversion, shrinking to tape width, and that only 12mm has been verified on hardware. That hardware caveat is valuable operational context. It does not mention failure modes such as an offline printer or a missing media type, but the core behavior is covered.

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 purpose comes first, followed by tightly scoped parameter notes, with no filler. The Japanese is dense and each clause carries information. A slightly clearer separation of parameter bullets would improve the structure.

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 an 8-parameter print tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important hardware-specific behavior and several parameters. However, the media and copies parameters and any error or prerequisite information are left unspecified, so an agent still has gaps.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully documents tape_mm (valid values plus the 12mm-only caveat), rotate, dither, and dry_run, but leaves path, media, copies, and invert unexplained. Half the parameters remain opaque.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: it prints a JPEG/PNG image file as a label. The explicit emphasis on 'image file' implicitly separates it from the text-based sibling, but no sibling is named.

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 guidance is about how to use parameters, such as rotate for portrait images, dither=false for logos, and dry_run for preview, rather than when to choose this tool over print_label_text or printer_status. The image-vs-text distinction is implied but never stated as an explicit alternative.

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