get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only lists what status fields are shown and does not disclose that the default result is cached, that `detailed` triggers a fresh push request from the printer, or the output format behavior; 'current status' is also slightly misleading given the cached default.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the action, scope, and representative output fields immediately. The trailing 'etc.' is slightly vague but does not add bulk.

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 is a low-complexity read operation with three optional parameters, all documented in the schema. The description captures the main output categories, and the schema covers the remaining invocation details, though the lack of any annotation or mention of cached-versus-fresh data leaves a small completeness gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains `format`, `printer`, and `detailed` clearly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the parenthetical option of querying all printers, which is already present in the schema.

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 and resource ('Get current status of a printer (or all printers)') and enumerates meaningful status fields (progress, temperatures, speed, AMS, lights), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling commands like get_version or list_printers. It doesn't name or explicitly contrast any sibling, so it stops one point short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description simply states the operation. It mentions 'all printers' as an option but never says when to use 'all' vs a specific printer, and it doesn't mention the cached-vs-fresh distinction that would inform choice of the `detailed` parameter.

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