unload_filament

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, but it only states the action and scope. It does not mention potential side effects such as filament ejection, whether heating is required, what happens if no filament is loaded, or how failures are handled on a per-printer basis for 'all'.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action and the key scope qualifier are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the operation.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description conveys the essential operation and scope. However, it omits behavioral consequences and usage conditions, making it minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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 schema already fully documents the 'printer' parameter. The description's mention of 'or all printers' reinforces the schema but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Unload') and clearly identifies the resource ('current filament from the extruder on a printer'). It also adds scope ('or all printers') to clarify multi-printer behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as change_filament, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool (when filament needs to be removed) and provides context about operating on a single printer or all printers. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over change_filament or any stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions.

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