check_material_match

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavior is implied but not elaborated beyond the check action.

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?

Description is short and to the point. It includes a purpose line and clear parameter explanations. Somewhat front-loaded but could benefit from a brief usage hint. Overall efficient.

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?

No output schema or annotations. The description covers the basic operation but lacks return value details (e.g., boolean or match result) and error scenarios. Sufficient for a simple check but incomplete for full understanding.

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%, so description compensates well. It explains 'expected_material' as 'the material the print file requires' and 'printer_name' as 'Target printer. Omit for the default printer.', adding default behavior and context not in the schema.

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 checks if the loaded material matches what a print expects. It uses specific verb ('Check') and resources ('loaded material', 'print expects'). Among siblings, this is a verification tool, distinguishing from search tools like 'find_material_match'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_material_match' or 'check_material_sufficiency'. The description does not provide context for selection or exclusions.

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