check_nozzle_capacity_for_print

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing. 'Check' weakly implies a read-only operation, but there is no statement about what is evaluated, what threshold or verdict is produced, or what to do with the result. The question format adds flavor, not behavioral facts.

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?

It is short, but a single rhetorical question is under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is no front-loaded statement of action or return value for the agent to act on.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the check returns (a pass/fail? remaining capacity? wear cost estimate?) and how the optional model/material inputs affect the verdict. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to predict or interpret the result.

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 coverage is 50%, and the two required parameters (printer_id, planned_grams) have no schema descriptions at all, while printer_model and filament_material only say 'Default: ""'. The phrase 'this print's wear cost' hints at planned_grams but adds no meaning about units, ranges, or why printer_model/filament_material matter.

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 phrase 'Pre-print check — will the nozzle survive this print's wear cost?' conveys loosely that the tool assesses nozzle wear capacity against a planned print, but the verb and outcome are rhetorical rather than stated. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as nozzle_wear_status, get_nozzle_state, preflight_check, or may_i_print, which an agent must distinguish between.

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?

'Pre-print check' implies timing (before starting a job) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With many overlapping siblings (nozzle_wear_status, get_community_wear_baseline, abrasive_escalation, check_printer_health), the agent gets no routing guidance.

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