print_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('the job, including its id and status') and the default printer fallback, which is useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, failure modes (e.g., printer offline), or whether output is durable, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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?

Purpose and return value are front-loaded, and the dense format spec follows efficiently - every line of the grammar subset earns its place. Slightly long, but the format detail is essential given the physical width constraint.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by summarizing the returned job (id and status). Combined with the thorough card-format rules, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only error handling and printer-value semantics are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the dominant parameter: the entire Markdown-subset grammar plus the 48mm/~25-char width constraint explains what 'markdown' should contain. The 'printer' parameter is only touched by the default-when-omitted note, leaving its expected values undocumented.

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 ('Print one or more cards on a printer') and clarifies the implicit default-printer behavior. It distinguishes itself from print_picture via 'cards', but never names the sibling tools (preview_cards, print_picture) it could be confused with.

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 context is only implied: the format spec suggests this is for short text cards, and the default-printer note helps invocation. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing away from preview_cards (draft/preview) or print_picture.

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