cfs_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, specific endpoints, and limitations (hardware_unverified, active_slot_control_supported). This provides solid transparency.

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 with three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and structured logically. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the mechanism and expected response fields, though the output structure is not fully detailed.

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 schema has zero parameters, so no parameter information is needed. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable.

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 discovers Creality CFS/CFS-C status via Moonraker. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ams_status' by noting it is a counterpart but not equivalent, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 implies usage for checking CFS status and contrasts with ams_status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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