print_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses that the image is resized to the printer's paper width, converted to black & white, and that dithering preserves photo/gradient edges. It also clarifies that printer applies only to the current job, leaving the active printer unchanged.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses only a few sentences to cover behavior and parameter guidance. A minor typo ('printer names which configured printer') prevents a perfect score, but nothing is redundant or wasted.

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?

The tool has only three parameters and no annotations; the description covers purpose, processing behavior, and the two non-obvious parameters. An output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not required here. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It explains dither's effect and the semantics of printer, including how to fall back to the active printer. image_path is not deeply described, but the phrase 'image file (PNG/JPG/etc)' makes its purpose obvious.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Print an image file (PNG/JPG/etc) on the label printer.' This unambiguously identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling print_text, which handles text rather than images.

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 provides actionable usage guidance: use dither=True for photos/gradients and dither=False for line art/text, and explains how the printer parameter overrides the active printer. It does not explicitly name alternatives like print_text, but the purpose statement and sibling context make the intended use clear.

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