get_nozzle_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'recorded' hints that this returns stored rather than live state, but the description does not clarify permissions, data freshness, rate limits, or what the returned state includes.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, direct, and free of filler. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but structurally it is efficient.

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 four parameters including a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It states the tool's basic effect but omits parameter purpose, return shape, and sibling differentiation, so an agent lacks the context needed to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is only 25%, and the description does little to compensate. It implies printer_id is the target, but adds no meaning for printer_model, file_nozzle_mm, or the nested printer_reading object, leaving three parameters effectively undocumented.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('recorded nozzle state for a printer'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like list_nozzle_states or set_nozzle_state, leaving the agent to infer whether this is a per-printer lookup versus a list operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_nozzle_states, auto_detect_nozzle, or nozzle_wear_status. The only implied usage is that it applies to a given printer, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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