reprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short: it does not say whether reprint creates a new job record, requires the printer to be online or known, what happens if job_id is invalid, or whether the action is reversible. The only behavioral disclosure is the default-to-last-job behavior, which largely restates the schema default.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the default behavior. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter action tool this is a reasonable minimum, covering purpose, default, and the optional printer override. But with no annotations and no output schema, it omits error behavior, side effects, and printer/job prerequisites, leaving the agent without enough to handle anything beyond the happy path.

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 partially does: it explains that job_id selects a previous job (default: last) and that printer is an optional override. It adds no format details for job_id, no indication that printer should come from list_printers, and no clarification of what a null printer means.

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 ('Print ... again') and resource ('a previous job'), and the phrase 'previous job' implicitly separates it from new-print siblings like print_cards and print_picture. It does not, however, name or contrast with any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

It supplies the key usage fact that no job_id means 'the last job' and that a different printer may be targeted, which tells the agent when the call is appropriate. There is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., when the original job was cancelled, or when a fresh print should be issued instead) and no alternatives named.

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