plan_print_recovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool is a convenience wrapper that synthesizes a FailureReport from supplied args using the latest checkpoint and runs the same planner as 'plan_failure_recovery'. This provides good insight into the tool's behavior, though it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects or is read-only.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a technical detail paragraph, usage guidelines in bullet points, and an arg list. It is concise with no fluff, though the reference to a Python class (':class:`FailureReport`') may be slightly esoteric for an AI agent.

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?

While the description provides good context about when to use and how the tool works internally, it lacks information about the return value. Since there is no output schema, the description should describe what the planned recovery strategy looks like. Additionally, there is a discrepancy between the described default for failure_type ('communication_loss') and the schema default (null), which is a minor completeness issue.

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 0%, but the tool description provides detailed parameter descriptions for all three parameters: printer_name, job_id, and failure_type. It lists possible failure types and the default value, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it plans a recovery strategy from a printer + job + failure type, with a specific verb 'plan' and resource 'recovery strategy'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'plan_failure_recovery' by explicitly noting the different input criteria (printer_name+job_id vs. failure_id).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative 'plan_failure_recovery'. It includes a bulleted list with clear scenarios: 'Have a printer_name + job_id from a failed print? → plan_print_recovery' and 'Have a failure_id from detect_print_failure? → plan_failure_recovery'.

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