print_history

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

No annotations provided, yet description lacks behavioral details such as read-only hint, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination. Only basic functionality is mentioned.

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?

Description is concise with one sentence for purpose followed by clear parameter bullet points. No redundant information; every sentence is useful.

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?

Covers the input parameters well, but given no output schema and many sibling history tools, missing description of return values or additional behavioral details. Reasonably complete for a simple list tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds meaningful parameter explanations (e.g., filter by printer name, status with examples, limit with default). However, status allowed values are not fully constrained (schema allows any string).

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?

Description clearly states 'Get recent print history with success/failure tracking', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling history tools like 'failure_history' or 'get_model_print_history'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The Args section explains parameters but does not indicate context or exclusions.

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