printer_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior, states that nothing is sent except a status request, explains cloud-mode compatibility, and clarifies polling and age_s semantics. It also describes the meaning of warnings and unknown AMS spool values.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents, and the polling and non-mutating behavior are clearly stated. It is somewhat long because it enumerates many status fields, but the details are relevant rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation layer, so the description must explain both behavior and return contents. It does that thoroughly for a status tool, including state, job, progress, temperatures, AMS details, warnings, read_at, and age_s, leaving little ambiguity for an agent 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and it appropriately focuses on what the returned status contains instead.

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 a specific verb and resource: read-only status of the printer on the local network, with a detailed list of what status includes. It is more specific than a tautology, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as bambu_status or list_printers.

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 useful context that the tool works in normal cloud mode and that only a status request is sent, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of bambu_status or other printer-related siblings. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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