diagnose

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description's value-add is the 'no printer motion' assurance, which tells the agent this probe will not actuate hardware. It says nothing about what gets logged, whether network calls to cloud endpoints occur, or how failures are surfaced, so the behavioral picture remains thin.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the enumerated checks followed by the safety guarantee. No filler; the only cost is that 'No printer motion' is slightly clipped phrasing. Every clause carries 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 read-only diagnostic with no output schema, an agent still needs to know what a passing versus failing diagnosis looks like and what connect_bridge controls. The description covers scope well but leaves these gaps, which is adequate rather than complete.

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 single parameter connect_bridge has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it; 'bridge prerequisites' gestures at the topic but does not explain what true versus false does or what side effect connecting a bridge entails. With low coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb (check) plus the exact domains: configured slicing, cloud login, LAN and bridge prerequisites. That distinguishes it from printer_status and the list_* siblings, which enumerate state rather than test prerequisites. It stops short of saying what a diagnosis result looks like.

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 printer motion' implies it is a safe pre-flight check, which hints at running it before prepare_job/print_job. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., after a failed print vs. before setup). Usage is only implied.

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