print

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the two-step process (preview then confirm), but does not explain what happens during each mode (e.g., preview returns estimated cost or content preview, confirm triggers actual printing). More detail on side effects or irreversible actions would improve transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences: one for purpose, one for usage context, one for the workflow. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, nested options, and a two-mode workflow. The description covers the workflow and basic usage but omits parameter semantics and does not mention return values or error handling. Given the complexity, more detail is needed for a complete picture.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It only contextualizes 'mode' and 'confirmationToken' via the workflow. The other parameters (printerUri, markdown, options) receive no explanation. For example, 'printerUri' should be a CUPS URI, 'markdown' is the content to print, and 'options' includes copies and timeout. This gap makes it hard for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Description clearly states printing markdown to a POS printer via CUPS URI. It's specific about the action and resource. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not required.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (user asks to print, make a hard copy, etc.) and provides a precise workflow: call with mode=preview first, then mode=confirm with a token. This is excellent guidance.

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