Print Image

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior — proportional scaling to 384px width and conversion to monochrome — which is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs. It omits limits (file size, supported formats), failure behavior, and whether the device must be online, so coverage is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the practical caveat about image detail. No filler or redundancy, though the closing tip is advisory rather than essential.

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 one-parameter print tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the definition covers the action and the key transformation fact. Remaining gaps — size/format limits and device-state prerequisites — are minor but would matter for an agent preparing a real print job.

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 single parameter already documents both accepted forms (absolute local path and data:image base64 URI). The description adds nothing about the image_path parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource — printing an image to the 咕咕机 device — which naturally distinguishes it from the text/url/mixed siblings by payload type. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the resource specificity leaves little ambiguity.

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 a useful preparatory tip (preprocess high-detail images into a higher-contrast version), but no guidance on when to choose print_image over print_mixed or print_url, and no prerequisites such as confirming device readiness via print_status. Usage is implied by the payload type rather than stated.

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