Status da impressora Bambu Lab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it carries it reasonably: it signals a read-only operation ('Consulta'), discloses the transport mechanism ('via MQTT (LAN mode)'), and explains the behavior of raw=true (returns the complete JSON estado report). It does not disclose failure behavior when LAN mode is unreachable or credentials are wrong, but the schema covers the parameter-based auth, so the main behavioral risks are addressed.

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 sentences, both essential: the first front-loads the verb, resource, method, and inventory of returned data; the second gives the raw-mode usage hint. No filler, and 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 read-only status tool with 4 optional parameters, no enums, and no nested objects, the description covers the return content (which fields appear in the report), the operation mode, and the alternative raw behavior — sufficient given there is no output schema. It could be a 5 with a note on typical failure conditions (printer offline or LAN mode disabled), but the current description is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter content in the description. The description's raw=true note ('receber o JSON pronto do relatório') largely restates what the schema already says ('Se true, retorna o JSON bruto completo do estado'), so it adds no substantial meaning over the schema. ip/serial/access_code semantics are already covered by the schema's override notes.

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 uses a specific verb ('Consulta' / queries) plus a clear resource ('status da impressora Bambu Lab'), and enumerates the exact data returned (estado, progresso, temperaturas, camadas, AMS, filamentos). This makes it easy to tell apart from siblings like bambu_print_control, bambu_start_print, and bambu_send_gcode without opening those schemas. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it misses full differentiation credit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: because the tool reads status and the only usable alternative tools are control/slicing/file actions, an agent can infer 'use this when you need the current printer state.' There is no explicit when/when-not language, no named alternatives, and no guidance that this tool does not perform commands or that LAN mode must be enabled.

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