emergency_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that active e-stop blocks print commands, explains parameter behavior, and outlines return fields (active, reason, source, timestamp, interlocks). It does not cover authorization needs or rate limits, but for a read-only status tool, it is fairly transparent.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter details and return info. No fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return fields, and related tools. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description explicitly documents both parameters with behavior and defaults. For printer_name: 'Query a specific printer, or omit for all printers.' For include_unlatched: includes default and meaning. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 it retrieves the emergency stop latch status for one printer or the entire fleet, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('emergency stop latch status'). It distinguishes from siblings like emergency_stop and clear_emergency_stop by focusing on status retrieval only.

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 explains when to use (to check e-stop status) and provides context (e-stop blocks print commands). It references sibling tools via 'See also', but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternative scenarios. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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