print_only

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it scans directories, supports specific formats (PNG, JPG, JPEG), prints in alphabetical order, and includes automatic paper cutting. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, permission requirements, or rate limits that would be helpful for a printing operation.

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 and appropriately sized with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, provides usage context, documents the parameter, return value, and behavioral details in clear sections. Every sentence earns its place by adding valuable 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (directory scanning, file format handling, printing operations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, formats, and behavioral details. The main gap is lack of error handling or permission information, but overall it provides good context 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description compensates well by explaining what 'directory' means ('Path to directory containing image files') and providing context about what the tool does with that directory (scans it for image files). The description adds meaningful semantics beyond what the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('send existing image files to the thermal printer without regenerating them') and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it works with pre-existing files rather than generating new content. It explicitly mentions what resource it operates on (PNG/JPG image files) and the action (printing).

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 ('useful for reprinting previously generated cards or printing custom images you've created'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for existing images rather than generating new ones, which helps differentiate from tools like task_cards_from_notion.

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