printer_get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it triggers a status push (not just retrieval), includes a rate limit warning ('not more than once every 5 minutes on P1P'), and specifies the scope of returned data (temperatures, print progress, AMS state, fan speeds, and more). This provides essential context beyond basic functionality.

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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key data returned, the second provides a critical usage constraint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded with essential information and appropriately concise.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what the tool does, what data it returns, and important behavioral constraints. However, it could be more complete by specifying the exact format of the returned status (e.g., JSON structure) or clarifying if the push is synchronous/asynchronous, which would help an agent interpret results.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information (as none exist), but this is appropriate given the parameterless design. No compensation is needed since there are no parameters to document.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Request a full status push') and resource ('from the printer'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'printer_get_cached_status' by emphasizing it's a fresh push rather than cached data. It explicitly lists key components included in the status (temperatures, print progress, AMS state, fan speeds).

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get comprehensive, real-time printer status) and includes an important exclusion ('should not be called more than once every 5 minutes on P1P'). However, it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like 'printer_get_cached_status' or 'get_printer_status', which could help differentiate usage scenarios.

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