bambuddy_diagnose_printer

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that IP addresses and diagnostic parameters are removed from the result, which helps the agent set expectations about data sanitization. No contradictions with 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 sentence that is direct and free of filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the most relevant caveat about removed fields without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple, one-parameter read-only diagnostic with an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose and result sanitization. Minor gaps remain around how to source printer_id and whether the printer must be in a particular state before diagnosis, but these do not substantially hinder 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 only parameter, printer_id, is not explained in the description, and the schema itself has no descriptive text beyond the title and minimum value. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to infer how to obtain or interpret a valid printer_id.

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 clearly identifies the action as running a read-only connection diagnostic for an existing printer, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like status retrieval or camera snapshots, and the phrase 'connection diagnostic' makes the tool's focus unambiguous.

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 intended use case is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to diagnose a printer's connection. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'existing printer.'

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