validate_print_quality

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions capturing a snapshot and examining job records, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence of purpose followed by a bullet-style argument list. No superfluous text.

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, the description reasonably covers inputs, behavior, and output (quality report with snapshot data, metrics, issues). It could detail the report structure or include usage guidance versus siblings, but is adequate for typical 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 coverage, the description adds essential meaning for all three parameters: explains job_id defaulting, printer_name defaulting, and save_snapshot as an optional file path. This is clear and helpful.

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 validates print quality after a completed job, distinguishing it from real-time failure analysis tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_print_failure, limiting precision.

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 specifies 'after a completed print job', giving clear context for when to use. But it provides no guidance on when not to use or mentions alternatives among siblings.

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