cutter_wear_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only wear report and hints that the comparison is against a manufacturer threshold ('the maker's own number'), but says nothing about whether it reads live printer state or logged replacement events, what permissions are needed, or what the returned value represents.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and comparison basis come first. The conversational question framing is slightly informal but costs nothing in length.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains the return value (percentage, threshold flag, boolean?) even though no output schema exists to cover it, and it leaves two undocumented parameters unaddressed.

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 only 33%, and the single 'description' present is just a default value for printer_model, not semantics. The description adds no meaning for printer_id, printer_model, or recent_faults, so an agent cannot tell why recent_faults is an input to a wear query.

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 names the specific resource (this machine's filament-cutter blade) and the specific operation (report how worn it is, measured against the maker's spec number). This distinguishes it from sibling nozzle_wear_status by naming the cutter blade explicitly. It is a clear read-purpose statement, though the question phrasing is informal rather than a crisp verb+resource.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as nozzle_wear_status, maintenance_due, or record_cutter_replacement. It never states prerequisites (does the printer need to be online? is it derived from replacement history?) or any exclusion conditions.

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