contribute_community_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. It explicitly states data storage behavior: 'Only geometric signatures and settings are stored — never file contents, user IDs, or file paths.' This is good transparency, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, idempotency, or error handling.

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 structured with a concise introductory sentence followed by an 'Args:' list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be more concise by omitting the word 'Args' since the format is clear, and some parameter descriptions could be shortened. Still, it is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers all parameters and the data storage policy, but it lacks a 'Returns:' section. Since there is no output schema, the agent needs to know what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, record ID). Also, it does not mention potential errors, constraints (e.g., value ranges for 'quality_grade' beyond defaults), or behavior for invalid inputs. Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 params, 5 required), these gaps reduce completeness.

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 the description compensates by listing all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'geometric_signature: Geometric signature from fingerprinting.'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though some descriptions are somewhat vague (e.g., 'Geometric signature' could be more specific). Overall, it adequately bridges the gap.

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 'Contribute a print outcome to the community registry' with the verb 'contribute' and specific resource 'community registry'. It explains that it adds an anonymous print record for community aggregation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'record_print_outcome' which likely logs to a personal or different scope.

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 when the goal is to share print data for community benefit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'record_print_outcome'. No 'when not to use' guidance or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent with implied context only.

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