get_fleet_status

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It mentions 'redacted' and 'failure-isolated', hinting at data filtering, but doesn't elaborate on what is redacted, authentication needs, or performance implications of hitting many printers. Partially transparent but insufficient detail.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with action and key modifiers. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description provides a suitable high-level overview. However, it omits details about the return format, what 'failure-isolated' means concretely, and how 'redacted' affects the data. Sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (concurrency) with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('fleet status summary'), and scope ('for every configured printer'). It adds specificity with 'redacted, failure-isolated', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_printer_status (single printer) and list_printers (just names).

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?

Implicitly suggests use for an overview of all printers with a focus on failures, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison with sibling tools like get_printer_status or list_printers. This leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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