get_printer_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context. It contributes a genuine cost/latency hint ('cheapest') and discloses that an active error message is part of the payload, which helps the agent decide to call this first. It does not say whether the snapshot is live or cached, or what happens when Klipper is unreachable.

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?

Two tight sentences: the field inventory first, then the recommendation. Every clause earns its place, and the usage advice is front-loaded where a scanning agent will catch it.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description does not need to document return values or safety behavior. It is nearly complete, but omits freshness/staleness semantics and failure behavior when the printer is offline, which matter for a status tool an agent is told to call first.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. The enumerated field list does at least preview what the no-argument call returns, which is a small bonus.

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 names a specific resource (overall printer state) and enumerates exactly what it covers: Klipper readiness, job state and progress, temperatures, position, homed axes, and active errors. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from narrower siblings like get_temperatures, get_position, or get_job_status without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Start here') and a reason to prefer it ('cheapest complete picture of the machine'), which tells the agent to use this for orientation before drilling into specific siblings. It does not name any sibling or state a when-not condition, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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