hms_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the returned content (text, severity, reprint advisability), but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no errors exist.

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 no filler that efficiently conveys scope and payload.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description partially covers the return payload but omits the parameter's meaning and any behavioral context. Minimally adequate for a simple read tool but leaves gaps.

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% and the description never mentions the sole parameter printer_id. It is reasonably self-evident for a printer-scoped tool, but the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema property.

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 resource (active HMS errors) with a clear scope qualifier (currently active, on a printer) and names the decoded payload fields. This distinguishes it from hms_lookup/hms_import, though it never explicitly routes against those siblings.

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 phrase 'currently active' implies when this is appropriate versus historical error lookups, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative despite the presence of hms_lookup and hms_import.

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