fleet_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the granularity (one line per printer) and the fields returned, which implies a safe read-only summary. It does not confirm read-only behavior, whether results are live or cached, or how an empty fleet is handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical enumeration of returned fields. Every element earns its place; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, and it does so by listing the per-printer fields. For a zero-parameter read-only summary tool this is close to sufficient; minor gaps remain around freshness and behavior with no configured printers.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The parenthetical field list describes output content rather than inputs, but no parameter explanation is required here.

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 states a specific resource (every configured printer) and the shape of what is returned (one-line status with state, progress, temps, plate-cleared flag). The scope word 'every' implicitly distinguishes it from the single-printer sibling printer_status, but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation is left to inference 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the fleet-wide summary to reach for instead of calling printer_status per machine. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no preconditions (e.g. whether printers must first be configured/discovered).

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