fleet_status_by_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation ('Get'), describes the return format, mentions the 'unassigned' grouping, and explicitly notes the requirement of an Enterprise license. No hidden behavior is left unexplained.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence and adds necessary detail in subsequent sentences. Perfectly concise and structured.

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, the description explains the return values (printer statuses grouped by site with status types). It covers edge cases (unassigned printers) and requirements (Enterprise license). The tool is simple and the description is complete.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so coverage is 100%. The description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema by explaining the output grouping, status categories, and handling of unassigned printers. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description exceeds it.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: 'Get fleet status grouped by physical site/location.' It clearly distinguishes from generic fleet_status by emphasizing grouping by site. It also details the return structure (idle, busy, offline) and handling of unassigned printers.

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 implies usage when site-based grouping is needed but does not explicitly contrast with other tools like fleet_status or list_fleet_sites. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, providing only implicit usage guidance.

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