Get Windows print queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Does not change jobs' merely restates what structured data provides. No additional behavioral context (permissions, empty-queue behavior, whether the optional parameter can be omitted) is disclosed.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the safety clarification.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, it leaves ambiguous behavior around the optional parameter (which printer is listed when none is supplied) and gives no sense of return shape or volume.

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 0% and the single 'printer' parameter is optional, so the description carries the burden. It usefully clarifies that the value may be a printer name or an alias, but says nothing about accepted syntax or what happens when the parameter is omitted.

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 and resource ('Lists current print jobs') with scope ('for one printer or alias'), which separates it from the historical sibling get_print_history by the word 'current'. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so a 5 is not warranted.

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: the word 'current' suggests checking live queue state, and 'Does not change jobs' reassures it is a safe read. There is no statement of when to prefer this over inspect_print_job, list_printers, or get_print_history, and no prerequisites given.

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