route_print_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It explains that the tool scores printers on material match, availability, queue depth, and historical success rate, and that it recommends the best assignment with scored alternatives. This discloses internal logic but does not mention whether it causes side effects (e.g., does it actually assign the job or just recommend?), or if it requires the printer to be available. It is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and includes a summary of the tool's behavior and an Args section that lists parameters with brief descriptions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullets) but is efficient.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema. The description explains the inputs well but does not describe what the output looks like (e.g., the recommendation structure), which is crucial. It mentions 'scored alternatives' but not their format. There is no mention of error conditions or side effects. Given the tool's complexity, it is minimally adequate.

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?

All four parameters are described with their purpose: file_path, material, quality, and priority. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by providing examples and meaning for each, e.g., material example 'PLA', quality preference values. It adds value beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Route a print job to the best available printer in the fleet.' It identifies the verb (route) and resource (print job) and mentions the scoring criteria. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'suggest_printer_for_job' or 'optimize_fleet_assignment', which may have similar purposes, so it misses the top score.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to use it (e.g., for immediate printing vs. planning) or when not to use it. Siblings like 'suggest_printer_for_job' or 'optimize_fleet_assignment' could be alternatives, but no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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