list_printer_variants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently explains the return behavior: as-shipped limits alongside each variant's limits, and an empty variants map for unverified machines. It does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free behavior, but the 'Show' verb and content imply it.

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 multi-paragraph and somewhat verbose, but all content serves a purpose: defining 'curated profile', 'variant', and the return semantics. The Args section is clearly formatted. Could be tightened, but it is not wasteful.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, the meaning of variants, and the empty-map edge case. It is complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with a printer identifier and interpret the response.

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 only parameter, printer_model, is described with a concrete example ('ender3'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema type. While format and validation rules are not specified, the example sufficiently clarifies the expected identifier format for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('curated hardware variants available for a printer'), clearly distinguishing this listing operation from related tools like select_printer_variant. The detailed explanation of what constitutes a variant further cements the 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 provides clear context on when variants exist (after Kiln verifies a documented hardware change) and notes that an empty map is the honest answer when no variants exist. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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