printix_get_printer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a read operation ('Get') and that the result contains properties/capabilities, but it does not address error behavior, invalid IDs, or authorization needs. Some useful context is provided, but significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 a single sentence that leads with the action and object, and every phrase earns its place: 'single' disambiguates from list operations, 'by ID' clarifies the lookup method, and 'properties/capabilities' signals return content. It is tight and free of filler.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what is retrieved, how it is identified, and what kind of data is returned. Minor gaps such as error semantics and exact return structure prevent a perfect score, but the description is largely sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes printerId as 'Printix printer/queue ID' with 100% coverage. The description only restates the lookup concept as 'by ID' and adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Get'), names the specific resource ('single Printix printer/queue'), and adds scope ('by ID') and return content ('properties/capabilities'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like printix_list_printers without needing to inspect the schema.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for fetching a specific resource when an identifier is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or how it relates to printix_list_printers. Usage guidance is present only by implication, not explicitly stated.

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