printer_status

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 checked attributes and a useful behavioral rule (warn at ~20% battery before long prints), but says nothing about read-only nature, printer-disconnected/error behavior, or response format beyond the field list.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the inspected fields, then the conditional warning. Every clause earns its place with 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned, and the battery-threshold guidance covers the key agent-facing behavior. The gap is the ambiguous 'printer' parameter, but overall it is sufficient for a simple one-param status check.

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 single 'printer' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and defaults to null, yet the description never explains what value identifies a printer (name, id, index) or that omitting it targets the default printer. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Check') and resource ('a printer') and enumerates what is inspected (battery_percent, paper, cover, temperature). This distinguishes it in spirit from list_printers/list_print_jobs, though no sibling is named 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?

'Check a printer before printing' gives clear timing/context for use, and the low-battery warning is scoped to 'long prints'. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named, so it does not reach a 5.

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