labelprint_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the non-opening, diagnostic behavior, but says nothing about whether the check touches hardware, whether it can fail/block, or any side effects beyond not opening the printer.

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 what is checked, then the constraint and the routing cue. 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-arg diagnostic with an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what is inspected, that it is non-invasive, and when to reach for it. The remaining gap is clarifying its relationship to the overlapping status/list_ports siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description is consistent with a no-argument diagnostic and adds no param detail beyond the empty 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?

Specific verb ('Check') plus three concrete resources (local config, serial ports, transport) clearly state what the tool does, and the negative statement 'Does not open the printer' sharpens the scope. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling labelprint_list_ports, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use this first when setup is unclear' gives an explicit triggering condition, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., list_ports or status) or stating when not to use it.

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