printer_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple status read by revealing that fresh=true triggers a full P1S pushall and warns against tight-loop calls, which signals cost/rate-limit implications. It does not explain the default caching behavior or potential errors, but for a status tool the disclosed behavior is meaningful and helpful.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second delivers the crucial parameter caution. Every clause earns its place.

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-optional-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key response fields and the one behavioral caveat that matters. It does not describe response formatting or error cases, but the listed fields are enough to understand return value expectations. The tight-loop warning adds practical operational context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only explanation of the fresh parameter. It explains both the effect (requesting a full P1S pushall) and a usage constraint (avoid tight loops). It does not explicitly state what happens when fresh is false, but the schema default of false plus the conditional phrasing provide enough context for an agent to act correctly.

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 tool reports the current P1S state with concrete fields: idle/printing status, job name, progress, temps, and remaining time. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get', but 'Current P1S state' unambiguously identifies the resource and operation. It is implicitly distinguished from sibling action tools like printer_pause or printer_resume, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies the tool is for reading live printer status and gives specific guidance about when to set fresh=true and to avoid calling it in a tight loop. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as printer_doctor or printer_ams, nor when not to use it. The usage guidance focuses on the parameter rather than tool selection.

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