analyze_print_failure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool examines job record, events, and printer state, and produces a diagnosis. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or if it modifies any state, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise (5 sentences) and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, process explanation, args section, and output description. No unnecessary 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 single parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers input and process, and describes the output as a structured analysis. It could be more explicit about the output format, but it is largely 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 description adds meaningful context to the single parameter 'job_id' by specifying its source: 'from job_history or job_status'. This goes beyond the schema's minimal definition, though the schema coverage is listed as 0%, the description effectively covers it.

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: analyze a failed print job and suggest causes/fixes. It specifies the verb (analyze) and resource (failed print job). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_print_failure' or 'analyze_print_failure_smart', so a 4 is appropriate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It lacks any conditional or contextual advice, earning a 2.

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