reconnect_printer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the underlying behavior (re-reading config, re-establishing MQTT connections), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, whether active prints are disrupted, idempotency, or any required permissions.

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 a single compact sentence that states the action, scope, and mechanism with no filler. The key scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, one optional parameter, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for invoking the tool correctly. It could be more complete with a note on return values or effects on ongoing prints, but for a simple reconnect operation it covers the essentials.

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% and the lone parameter is fully described in the schema: 'Printer ID, 'all', or omit for all printers'. The description reinforces the all-printers option but adds no new parameter semantics beyond 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Reconnect'), resource ('printer'), and scope ('or all printers'), plus the mechanism ('re-reading config and re-establishing MQTT connections'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as add_printer 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?

The description implies the tool is used when printers need to be reconnected, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like sync_cloud_printers or get_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is understandable but left to inference.

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