labelprint_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that media size is not fetched from the internet (local/offline behavior), but does not say whether 'opening' the printer has side effects, what happens if no printer is configured, or whether the operation is safe/read-only.

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 with the core action front-loaded. The trailing print/barcode guidance is somewhat off-topic for a status tool, adding minor noise, but overall it is tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description names what data comes back. For a zero-parameter status tool this is nearly sufficient, missing only error/failure conditions and the safety profile that absent annotations would otherwise supply.

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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The mention of width_mm/height_mm refers to a different tool (labelprint_print) and is not a parameter of this one, but it does not misrepresent this tool's 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('open the configured local printer') and enumerates the returned data (identity, power, on-device media chip). An agent can distinguish it from labelprint_print or labelprint_render, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, labelprint_doctor.

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 only guidance ('If a barcode is present, match it against the local config table or pass width_mm/height_mm when printing') describes downstream printing behavior rather than when to call this status tool versus labelprint_doctor or labelprint_list_ports. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use conditions.

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