fleet_hardware_stops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description does add value beyond that by disclosing result ordering (walk order) and the hardware categories counted. However, it never clarifies what 'waiting' means operationally — a paused print awaiting a manual insert versus a planned-but-unstarted job — which is the key behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the condition and ending with the ordering rule, with no filler. The parenthetical '(Business)' is opaque and does not earn its place since nothing else in the definition explains it.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the population (printers awaiting hardware) and the ordering, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is that it does not describe the shape of each returned stop, and with no output schema that leaves the return values unspecified.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining 'Omit for every registered machine, each physical machine once.' The description adds nothing about printer_names, so the baseline of 3 for a fully documented schema is appropriate.

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 a concrete resource and condition: printers currently waiting for a nut, magnet or bearing, returned in floor-walk order. That clearly separates it from generic siblings like fleet_status or fleet_thermal_posture. It falls short of 5 because the phrasing is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and the trailing '(Business)' is unexplained.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need to know which machines are blocked on hardware. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to adjacent tools such as plan_hardware_insertion or record_hardware_insertion that would complete the workflow.

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