Get Overprint Info

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It usefully discloses that the tool performs analysis (K100/rich black detection and intent classification) rather than merely echoing raw flag values, which is substantive behavioral information not present in any structured field.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is tight and appropriately sized for a zero-argument query tool.

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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to say what the tool returns and why it is useful. It conveys the analysis performed but leaves the meaning of 'intent classification' and the shape of the result unstated, a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema surface for the description to compensate for. The baseline of 4 applies; nothing is contradicted or left ambiguous.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('overprint settings') and adds what is computed ('K100/rich black detection and intent classification'). It is clearly distinct from neighbors like get_separation_info or preflight_check, though it never explicitly names which sibling it is not.

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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_separation_info or preflight_check, which an agent might reasonably confuse with this one. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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