kiln_monitor_snapshot

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. It usefully discloses that this is internal support polled by the rendered panel and therefore not intended for direct use, which implies a read-oriented internal call. However, it does not state permissions, side effects, rate-limit behavior, or what the returned snapshot includes, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences and is front-loaded with the internal-support context. The second and third sentences add the return behavior and the direct-use warning, though there is mild overlap between 'internal support' and 'called by the panel itself.' It is appropriately sized with no wasted prose.

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 an internal panel-support tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does enough to warn agents away from direct use. It is still incomplete regarding the four parameters, the snapshot contents, and return behavior, but the central consumption warning is present.

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?

There are four parameters with 75% schema description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema already documents the three include_* booleans as defaulting to false, but printer_name has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description therefore does not compensate for the remaining 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it 'Returns the composed printer snapshot the rendered panel polls.' That is clear enough to understand what the tool does, and the note about internal panel use distinguishes it from more general printer snapshot or monitoring tools. It stops short of explaining what the composed snapshot contains, but the core purpose is legible.

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 gives a strong when-not-to-use signal: 'Called by the panel itself; not useful to call directly.' This is explicit guidance against direct agent invocation. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, which keeps it from a 5, but the exclusion is clear and actionable.

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