may_i_print

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It suggests a read-only authorization query, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether it reserves or locks anything, what permissions are required, or what the response 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The question form is compact, though slightly less direct than a declarative statement of purpose.

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 two-parameter permission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is incomplete: it does not explain what the answer returns, what 'on whose say-so' means operationally, or how file_hash affects the decision.

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 description does not mention either parameter. printer_name has no schema description, and file_hash is only given a trivial default of "". With 50% schema coverage, the description should explain the role of file_hash in the permission decision, but it does not.

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 check: whether the caller may start a print on a given printer and what authority supports that. It is clearly a permission query rather than a print command, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as start_print or preflight_check.

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?

It implies a pre-print permission check with 'right now', but gives no explicit guidance on when to call it versus start_print, preflight_check, or check_print_readiness. There are no stated exclusions or alternatives.

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