printer_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the kind of information returned (tape width, tape type, error status) and that it doubles as a connectivity probe, but it does not say how a failed connection or a printer error surfaces (for example, an exception versus a status field), whether the call is safe or side-effect-free, or how expensive it is if no printer is attached. This provides partial disclosure for a no-annotation tool.

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 definition is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the connectivity-check purpose. Nothing is redundant, though the phrasing is somewhat terse and the secondary use is tucked into a parenthetical rather than foregrounded.

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?

Because the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description must at least outline what gets read, and it does this: tape width, type, and error presence. What remains unaddressed is the failure mode when the printer is unreachable and the response format, but these are minor gaps for a simple read-only status probe.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to misrepresent. The description correctly implies that no input is needed in order to query status. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.

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 specific verb and resource in Japanese: connect to the printer and read tape width, type, and error presence. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling print_label_text and print_label_image because this tool only reads and does not print. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 parenthetical '(つながるかの確認にも)' implies that this is a connectivity check, which suggests calling it before printing, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or how it relates to the two print tools. The usage context is therefore implied rather than spelled out.

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