printer_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. "List" implies a read-only operation and the configuration source is disclosed, but there is no explicit read-only statement, no error/auth/rate-limit behavior, and no indication whether it contacts hosts or only reads local config.

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 two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the configuration note second. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description gives enough to call the tool: what is listed and how configuration is supplied. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools like printer_status or host_bridge_status.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful gap. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 and resource: "List explicit configured Moonraker/OctoPrint hosts." It is clear what the tool does, but the tool name printer_capabilities suggests a broader capability report, and the description does not distinguish this from printer_status or host_bridge_status.

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 only guidance is "Configure ORCA_MCP_PRINTERS JSON," which explains configuration rather than when to use the tool. It does not say when this should be used instead of printer_status, host_bridge_status, or other printer/host tools.

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