check_power_loss_recovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about whether this reads printer state, performs analysis or mutates recovery state, what inputs it needs from the printer, or what the caller gets back. The only real disclosure is the Pro entitlement requirement, which is genuinely useful but far from sufficient for an 8-parameter recovery tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, but the remaining half of the text is promotional copy about Pro features and an upgrade URL with an agent-tracking query string. That content does not describe the tool and displaces information an agent actually needs.

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 tool with eight largely undocumented parameters, a nested object (moonraker_config), no annotations and no output schema, the description provides only a one-line purpose plus an upsell. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently construct a call or predict behavior.

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 63%, below the 80% baseline, so the description needs to compensate for parameters like probe_xy, print_bbox and moonraker_config that have no schema descriptions. The description mentions no parameters at all, leaving the caller to guess what geometry, failure identifier or printer config is expected.

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 first sentence states a clear verb and resource: assessing how to recover an interrupted print after a power loss. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many close siblings (plan_print_recovery, recover_power_loss_print, assess_fleet_power_loss, resume_interrupted_print, get_recovery_plan), so an agent cannot tell which recovery tool is the right entry point.

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 statement of when to use this versus the many alternative recovery tools, and no prerequisites beyond the entitlement note. 'Requires Kiln Pro' is a useful gate, but that is a licensing condition rather than usage guidance.

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