start_printer_health_monitoring

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that monitoring is continuous, periodic, and generates alerts, but does not mention side effects, resource impact, permissions, or return value. This 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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, followed by details and param docs, then references. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool that starts background monitoring, the description explains what is monitored and that alerts are generated, but lacks information on return value, how to track monitoring status, or lifecycle (how to stop, state persistence). This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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 adds meaningful details: names, types, default value for interval_seconds, and context. For example, 'Seconds between health checks (default 30)' clarifies purpose and default. It does not cover validation or edge cases, but adds significant value.

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: 'Start continuous background health monitoring for a printer.' It specifies what is monitored (connectivity, temperature, print health, error detection) and that alerts are generated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop and 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?

The description includes 'See also' references to stop_printer_health_monitoring, check_printer_health, and printer_status, which imply usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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