ams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does clearly state a read-only behavior ('Read') while enumerating returned attributes. It does not discuss output structure, live-versus-cached data, or error behavior, but the non-destructive nature and scope are transparent enough for a simple read 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 description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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 parameterless read operation, the description adequately conveys what data is returned and at what granularity (per-slot). It does not specify return structure or behavior when no AMS unit is available, but these are minor gaps for correct 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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds useful context by clarifying what the parameterless call returns.

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 uses a clear action verb ('Read'), names the resource ('AMS units'), and enumerates the specific data returned: filament type, color, nozzle range, and active slot. This makes it easily distinguishable from siblings like temps or list_files, which target different concerns.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is mentioned. The AMS-specific wording implies usage when filament/AMS data is needed, but it does not clarify how this relates to the broader status tool.

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