get_material_success_rates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers little: 'Get' implies a read, but it never states the aggregation window (all-time vs recent), the data source, or whether the caller needs ownership/scope of the printer. For a statistics tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a notable gap.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though the space saved is not used to add the missing scoping detail.

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 statistics tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves the agent guessing what 'success/fail' means (job outcome? first-layer? cancellation?) and over what population or time range it is computed. It is under-specified for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the single printer_id parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description only implies it is the printer whose rates are computed, adding no format, source, or scoping detail to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a per-material success/fail breakdown scoped to one printer, which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_material_consumption_history or print_history. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as failure_history, print_history, or get_material_consumption_history, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., does the printer need recorded print outcomes?). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a printer'.

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