get_printer_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey the read-only nature ('Return') and that it reads 'saved' configuration rather than live device state — a useful distinction from probe_device. However, it does not disclose error behavior when no active printer exists, which is a plausible runtime scenario an agent should anticipate.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the primary action is front-loaded, the config contents are exemplified compactly, and the sibling routing is appended efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema getter, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned, scopes it to the active printer, and points to the alternative for the full list. The only gap is the edge case of no active printer being selected, which could have been stated explicitly.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; there is no parameter semantics gap for the description to fill.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a precise resource ('the active printer's saved configuration') and cites example fields (address, driver, paper width). The qualifier 'active printer's' sharply distinguishes this from siblings like list_printers, and the final sentence explicitly names the sibling for the 'every printer' case.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use-alternative directive: 'Use list_printers to see every configured printer.' This states the condition under which a sibling should be chosen instead, leaving no inference burden on the agent.

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