first_layer_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates the tool is read-only (returns state, not mutates) and mentions snapshots. However, it doesn't disclose any prerequisites (e.g., must be after start_monitored_print) or failure cases. Adequate but not rich.

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 very concise: one line for purpose, one for return, one for parameter. No wasted words. It uses a clean docstring format and is easy to parse.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the input source and vaguely describes the return (state + snapshots). It could be more detailed about the return format or possible states, but is largely complete for a simple status check.

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 provides no parameter description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that monitor_id is 'The monitor ID returned by start_monitored_print.' This adds crucial semantic information beyond the 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 the tool's function: 'Check the status of a first-layer monitor.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('first-layer monitor status'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like bed_level_status or cfs_status. The mention of returning captured snapshots adds specificity.

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 provides clear context: the tool should be used after starting a monitored print (as the monitor_id argument comes from start_monitored_print). It implies polling for status but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Still, the context is strong.

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