list_printers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (technology, model, build volume, maintenance notes, active queue), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or that this is a non-mutating read beyond what 'List' implies.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste, and the field enumeration is load-bearing given the absence of an output schema. It could be marginally tighter but nothing is padded.

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 simple two-param read tool with no output schema, the summary of returned fields is important and present. The gaps (pagination behavior and a pointer to the filter parameters) are minor against the low complexity of the operation.

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%, and both optional filters (status, technology) are documented with examples in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about these filters, so it neither compensates nor extends 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (3D printers in the studio fleet), and enumerates the fields returned. Scope ('all ... in the studio fleet') implicitly distinguishes it from the singular get_printer sibling, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: 'List all' signals bulk retrieval vs the singular get_printer, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. The description also ignores the available status/technology filters, so an agent must infer when to narrow the query.

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