download_printer_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses that the operation is 'read-only on the printer' and that it writes a copy into the local projects folder, plus the side effect of extracting the last frame of a timelapse. It does not explain overwrite behavior if the target name already exists, permission requirements, or failure modes, which are significant gaps for a file-copy operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, then adds parameter behavior and the read-only safety note. The sentence about the timelapse's last frame is slightly awkward and could be clearer, but every clause is relevant and nothing is padded.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers purpose, parameter modes, and read-only status. It still leaves important operational details unstated: what the tool returns or where exactly in the projects folder the file lands, how name collisions are handled, and whether the downloaded file becomes a project or just a file.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain both parameters: name is drawn from printer_files or defaults to 'latest' for timelapses, and kind='prints' selects a past-print file. It stops short of listing all valid kind values or clarifying what name should be when kind='prints', so it is helpful but not fully authoritative.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('copy a file from the printer's SD card into the projects folder') and immediately enumerates the two supported targets: a timelapse video or a past print file. It also names the sibling tool printer_files as the source of valid names, so an agent can distinguish it from printer_files, delete_printer_files, and send_to_printer without opening a 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 explicitly states which case uses which mode: timelapse videos use name from printer_files or 'latest', while past-print files use kind='prints'. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name a clear alternative for related operations (e.g., listing files vs deleting them), leaving some inference to the agent.

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