get_ams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation (get state) but offers no details on permissions, side effects, data freshness, or what constitutes 'state'. No behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it lacks structured information such as sections or examples, and the conciseness sacrifices completeness.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not explain the output structure or how to use the returned state. Sibling tools provide context but the description stands alone inadequately.

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 0%. The description does not explain the 'printer_id' parameter, its expected format, or how to obtain it. The schema only provides the name and type, no additional semantics.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('AMS tray/filament state for a printer'), with a stated purpose ('so you can pick tray slots'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'list_filaments' or 'get_print_session'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no prerequisites or context provided beyond the single purpose.

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