troubleshoot_printer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The behavioral context is insufficient.

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 a clear opening sentence and a structured args list. It avoids unnecessary words, though the args section could be more tightly integrated.

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 no output schema and the existence of a sibling tool ('troubleshoot_print_issue'), the description lacks completeness: it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of causes/fixes), pagination, or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves gaps for effective agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing both parameters with brief descriptions (printer_id, symptom) and examples of symptom values. However, descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Description of the problem') and add limited meaning beyond names.

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: 'Diagnose a printer issue by searching the known failure modes database', with a specific verb and resource. It provides examples of symptoms (under-extrusion, layer shifting) but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'troubleshoot_print_issue', limiting distinction.

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 specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'troubleshoot_print_issue' or other diagnostic tools. No guidance on prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions is provided.

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