print_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: text wraps to paper width and the printer parameter only overrides the active printer for this one job. However, it does not explain what happens on errors, whether the job is queued or immediate, or any permission/dependency requirements, so transparency is only partial.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main action, followed by parameter-specific details. All sentences earn their place, though there are minor grammar issues such as 'printer names which configured printer' that slightly reduce clarity. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is appropriately compact.

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 simple four-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main printing behavior and two key parameters. It does not explain font_size semantics, mention how to discover valid printer names (e.g., via list_printers or scan_printers), or provide guidance around error cases. This is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with no annotations.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does provide useful semantics for align (allowed values) and printer (override scope and default behavior), which add real meaning beyond the schema. However, font_size is not described at all, and text is left entirely to the schema's 'Text' title, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 the core action: printing a block of text on a label printer, and adds a useful detail about wrapping to paper width. This distinguishes it reasonably from sibling print_image, though it does not explicitly call out that sibling as the image alternative. Overall it is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 intended use is implied by the description: use this tool when you need to print text. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over print_image or any other sibling, nor any exclusion or alternative naming. It gives some operating context around the printer parameter but not tool-selection guidance.

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