preflight_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact checks performed, the effect of printer_name (state/temps/material follow the named machine), the accept_paused behavior, and the return structure (ready boolean and per-check breakdowns). This goes beyond a high-level summary and provides actionable behavioral details.

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 summary sentence, a bulleted checklist, and a detailed Args section. Every sentence provides needed detail; there is no fluff. The front-loaded summary gives immediate understanding of the tool's 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?

Given the complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema) and the safety-critical nature of the checks, the description is complete. It covers what is checked, how each parameter modifies behavior, the intended usage context (before start_print), and the return value (ready boolean and breakdowns). An agent can decide when and how to invoke this tool with confidence.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description exhaustively documents all five parameters: file_path, expected_material, remote_file, accept_paused, and printer_name, including defaults, optionality, and behavioral effects. It adds meaning far beyond the schema's bare type/default fields.

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 explicitly states 'Run pre-print safety checks to verify the printer is ready' and enumerates specific checks (connectivity, idle state, error flags, temperatures, optional material/file checks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like printer_status or start_print by naming the exact purpose and the expected follow-up call.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Call this before start_print() to catch problems early.' Also explains optional parameters and their applicability (e.g., accept_paused used by start_print with resume). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives among the many readiness-related sibling tools, so it lacks the when-not or explicit alternative guidance for a 5.

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