fleet_utilization

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the tool provides a lightweight, non-destructive overview of current fleet capacity. It does not mention any side effects or special requirements, which is acceptable for a read-only metric tool. However, it could be more explicit about data freshness or caching behavior.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence defines the tool's core function, second sentence provides context and alternative tools. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 simple read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the metrics and differentiates from related tools. It could mention the output format or limitations, but it's sufficient for effective use.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it could indicate that no parameters are required. Still, the baseline holds.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves fleet utilization metrics (busy/idle/offline counts and utilization percentage). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools fleet_status and fleet_analytics, making its unique purpose clear.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use this tool ('lightweight overview of fleet capacity') and when to use alternatives: 'For full printer details, use fleet_status. For historical analytics, use fleet_analytics.' This provides clear usage guidance.

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