printer_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It valuably states that the tool does not print or change printer state, which is the most important safety trait. However, it does not explain what the checks actually do (network calls, CLI invocations) or what the returned diagnostic result looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the verb first, enumerates the checked subsystems, and ends with an important non-destructive caveat. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is nearly complete: it names the full scope of checks and explicitly excludes print/state modifications. It could be slightly richer by clarifying expected output or why to prefer it over printer_status, but the essential calling context is present.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description creates no parameter-related gaps.

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 specifies the verb 'Check' and lists the exact resources the tool inspects (env, LAN ports, MQTT, FTPS, slicer CLI). It also distinguishes itself from state-changing operations by explicitly stating it does not print or change printer state, though it does not name a specific sibling like printer_status.

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 clear context: use this when you need to verify environment/network/protocol/slicer connectivity, not for printing or modifying printer state. It does not name explicit alternative tools, but the non-mutation statement effectively tells an agent when not to choose this tool.

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