fleet_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that unresponsive printers are reported as offline (error handling) and that an empty fleet triggers auto-registration. It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or data freshness, but the core behaviors are 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?

Every sentence earns its place: two sentences state purpose and distinguish siblings; one sentence details the return values; two sentences cover edge cases. No fluff, front-loaded with primary action – exemplary conciseness.

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 parameter-less tool with no output schema or annotations, this description is largely complete: it covers what is returned, behavioral edge cases (offline handling, auto-registration), and relations to siblings. It could mention whether the list is paginated or limited, but that is a minor omission.

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 are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% trivially. According to the scoring rules, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist; it appropriately focuses on the result.

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 starts with 'Get live status of all fleet printers' – a specific verb and resource. It lists the returned fields (name, backend type, connection, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools fleet_analytics and fleet_status_by_site, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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 clearly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: use for live snapshot, not for historical analytics (use fleet_analytics) or location grouping (use fleet_status_by_site). It also explains edge-case behavior (auto-registration when no printers exist), providing complete usage context.

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