printer_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says what information is returned but does not disclose whether this is a safe read-only call, how offline or error states are represented, whether queue data is paginated, or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. The brevity is appropriate, though the fragment style leaves it under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 status tool this covers the high-level return content, but with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the definition is not complete enough. It should at least clarify the printer identifier format and any important failure or offline behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required 'printer' parameter. The description does not explain whether 'printer' should be a name, ID, network address, or other identifier, so an agent must guess the accepted value format.

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 states a specific resource: printer runtime state (with examples like offline, out of paper, jammed) and its print queue. It is clear what information the tool retrieves, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling describe_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 gives no guidance on when to use printer_status versus alternatives such as describe_printer, list_printers, or print_job. It also does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical invocation contexts.

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