printer_camera

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does useful work by declaring read-only semantics, the cloud-mode requirement, and the caveat that the image is dark when the chamber light is off. It omits failure behavior (printer offline, unsupported model) and says nothing about latency, caching, or how the image is returned.

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?

Front-loaded with the core identity, then use cases, then caveats, then the parameter note — every clause carries information. The final 'max_size' sentence feels appended rather than integrated, which slightly hurts flow but not content.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, hardware scope, prerequisite, and the main gotcha (dark image). It could add what an error/offline case looks like, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining max_size as 'longest side in pixels', which gives the agent enough to choose a value alongside the schema's default of 1280. Only the absence of guidance on sensible ranges keeps it below 5.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource: a live picture from the printer's camera, scoped to P1 and A1 series hardware. That is clearly distinct from siblings like printer_status, preview_plate, or printer_files, though it never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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 states clear use cases — checking how a print is going, detecting a part that came off or 'spaghetti', seeing what is left on the bed — plus the prerequisite that the printer must be in cloud mode. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g. prefer printer_status for non-visual checks).

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