info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned (version, dependencies, configuration, health) and specific checks performed, but does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics like execution time or rate limits.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, checks) and uses bullet points for readability. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value by explaining what the tool does and what information it provides. It could be more concise by combining some statements.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (system diagnostics with multiple checks) and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what information is returned. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., JSON structure), error handling, or specific health indicators that would make it more complete for agent use.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and return values, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'Returns', 'Checks') and resources ('MCPOSprint server information and system status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'test_printer_connection' by covering broader system diagnostics beyond just printer connectivity.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Essential for troubleshooting and verifying proper setup'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools. It implies usage for system health checks without exclusion guidance.

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