Druckauftraege

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (all printers, only open/pending jobs) but says nothing about ordering, limits, or whether completed jobs are excluded — modest added value on top of the annotations.

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 compact sentence with the core resource front-loaded and the clarifying parenthetical placed after it. No filler, redundancy, or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and zero parameters mean no input semantics are missing. What remains absent is guidance on the relationship to the cancellation sibling and any hint at result volume, which would help an agent act on the listing.

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 is nothing further for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly signals that no filtering input is expected, since results span all printers.

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?

Names a specific resource — open print jobs across all printers — and clarifies what 'offen' means (pending/stuck jobs, e.g. printer powered off). An agent can tell this is a status-listing tool and not the cancel tool (druckauftrag_abbrechen) or printer list (drucker_liste), though it never explicitly states the operation verb ('list/retrieve').

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 hints at the diagnostic scenario (stuck jobs when a printer is offline), which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no reference to the sibling tools such as druckauftrag_abbrechen, which an agent would plausibly consider alongside this one.

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