check_printer_material_support

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses the tool's read-only nature and return values (compatibility status, upgrades, notes). It explains the two modes (with or without material_id). However, it does not mention potential permissions or side effects, which are minimal for a check 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 description is well-structured with a clear first sentence, a bullet-style explanation of returns, a see-also note, and parameter details. Every sentence is informative and avoids 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, the description adequately explains the return content (status, upgrades, notes) and the two modes. It lacks exact format details of the compatibility matrix, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a check tool.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'bambu_a1', 'petg') and explaining the effect of omitting material_id. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: checking if a printer supports a specific material or listing all compatible materials. It distinguishes from the sibling tool check_printer_material_compatibility by noting that the sibling includes design-intelligence context and alternatives.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (simple compatibility check) and directly references an alternative (check_printer_material_compatibility) for more context-rich queries. It also explains the behavior when material_id is omitted.

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