fleet_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the return content (list of printer snapshots with name, backend type, connection status, operational state, temperatures), error handling (failed printers are reported offline rather than raising), and a side effect (auto-registers current adapter as 'default' if no printers exist).

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it is somewhat lengthy due to extensive alternative guidance. Each sentence adds value, yet the text could be tightened without losing clarity, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, error behavior, the auto-registration side effect, and how it differs from related tools. It also implies tier gating by noting alternatives are not tier-gated, providing sufficient context for safe invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no parameter semantics; however, with 0 params the baseline is 4, and the description does clarify the tool's scope (all fleet printers).

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get live status of all fleet printers (state, temps, connection — current snapshot).' It includes a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the multi-machine view is a fleet feature and naming single-printer alternatives like printer_status, printer_snapshot, and monitor_print.

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 explicit usage guidance: for one printer, use printer_status/detail='lite' or printer_snapshot or monitor_print; for historical analytics use fleet_analytics; for grouping by physical location use fleet_status_by_site. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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