troubleshoot_printer

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

The description discloses that the tool searches a database, returns causes/fixes, and for Bambu HMS codes echoes the code with a link and optionally a decoded cause with Kiln Pro. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it has no side effects. With no annotations to rely on, the description provides moderate transparency but could be more explicit about traits like non-destructiveness.

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 with clear sections, examples, and argument explanations. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and avoids unnecessary information. However, it is somewhat verbose with multiple examples, earning a score of 4 rather than 5 for perfect conciseness.

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 no annotations, the description covers the input parameters well and hints at the output (echoed code, link, decoded cause). However, it lacks details about the overall response structure, error handling, or additional context for non-Bambu printers. It is functional but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters but no descriptions. The tool description explains each parameter: printer_id as model identifier, symptom as problem description (optional if hms_code given), and hms_code as optional Bambu error code. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying usage and optionality.

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.' It specifies the action (diagnose), the resource (failure modes database), and provides concrete examples of symptoms and HMS codes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'troubleshoot_print_issue' which may have a different scope.

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 gives usage instructions: describe the symptom or pass an HMS code for Bambu printers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other diagnostic tools in the sibling list) or when not to use it. The guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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