get_printer_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is read-only and advisory, and that it does not override safety limits. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any further behavioral constraints beyond the note.

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 extremely concise: four sentences covering purpose, outputs, a critical advisory note, and parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with verb and resource, and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers its functionality, constraints, and parameter details adequately. The advisory note adds important context. It does not describe the return format, but the listed data points (success rates, failure modes, per-material stats) sufficiently inform the agent.

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 schema has no descriptions for its properties (0% coverage), but the description's docstring provides 'Args' section with clear explanations: 'printer_name: The printer to get insights for' and 'limit: Maximum recent outcomes to include (default 20)'. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's type/title information.

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 specific verb ('Query') and resource ('cross-printer learning insights'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_printer_intelligence' or 'get_printer_design_capabilities'. It enumerates the returned data (success rates, failure mode breakdown, per-material statistics), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 states 'Insights are advisory' and that they 'do NOT override safety limits or preflight checks', implying a consultative use. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Some guidance is present but lacks direct comparisons.

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