auto_detect_nozzle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool transforms a payload into a NozzleState, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it side-effects printer state, what validation or errors occur, or what permissions are required.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is structurally efficient, though it leaves important details unaddressed for a tool with three required parameters.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across three required parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the raw payload format, the role of printer_id and brand, or what a NozzleState contains.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for three required parameters: printer_id, brand, and raw_payload. The description does not explain any parameter's expected format, role, or constraints, so it adds no semantic information beyond the schema's titles.

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 states a specific verb, 'Parse', and a specific resource, a raw printer payload, producing a NozzleState. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby nozzle-state siblings like get_nozzle_state, list_nozzle_states, or set_nozzle_state.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_nozzle_state or list_nozzle_states. The only implied usage is when a raw payload exists, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria are given.

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