Printer status

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context — label size comes from the roll's RFID tag, so a missing/unknown roll may yield no size — but says nothing about connection failures, offline printers, or what happens when no device is reachable.

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?

A single compact noun phrase with no filler; every listed item is meaningful. It is front-loaded with the most important signal (readiness), though the fragment form is terse to the point of being abrupt.

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?

This is a low-complexity, single-optional-parameter read tool, and the description names the four returned data categories, which partially substitutes for the absent output schema. However, it gives no shape for those values (units, formatting, error states) and is silent on the device targeting behavior the agent must decide on.

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 100% and the single `device` parameter is well documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description never mentions the `device` parameter or the default-device fallback, adding nothing beyond the schema.

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 enumerates the specific data the tool returns (readiness, loaded label size, battery, firmware), which is unambiguously a printer status/telemetry read and clearly distinct from mutation siblings like p21_print or p21_save_label. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the name and title to convey the action.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives — no mention that it should precede p21_print to verify readiness or check label stock, and no preconditions stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the field list.

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