troubleshoot_print_issue

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 the tool searches a knowledge base, returns root causes, prioritised fixes, prevention tips, and storage/drying requirements. It also specifies varying behavior based on whether a symptom is supplied. The description does not mention side effects or auth, but for a diagnostic tool, these are not critical.

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: a brief purpose statement, a detailed explanation of behavior, usage guidance, examples, and parameter definitions. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, usage, and return values (root causes, fixes, etc.) despite lacking an output schema. It is complete for a simple two-parameter tool. Minor omission: does not specify the format of the return (e.g., JSON), but examples and structure imply a readable format.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by defining 'material' as a material ID with a list of examples (pla, petg, abs, etc.) and 'symptom' as optional keywords with examples (stringing, warping). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's bare type 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 diagnoses 3D printing problems by material and symptom, specifying it searches a knowledge base and returns root causes, fixes, prevention tips, and storage/drying requirements. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_print_failure or troubleshoot_printer by focusing on the knowledge base and specific output.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use when a user reports a print failure or quality issue, with examples. It explains behavior with and without a symptom parameter (e.g., 'When no symptom is given, returns all known issues'). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools, which would improve the score.

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