inspect_print

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it is a non-destructive read ('check'), it aggregates several data sources, and the older comparison frame is conditionally present. It omits any note on capture latency, resource cost, or that it is side-effect free, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One dense sentence with the operative framing ('Supervision check:') front-loaded and no redundant filler. The nested list of returned artifacts is long but each item carries distinct 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description correctly takes on the job of enumerating what comes back and even flags the human-judgment guidance included in the payload. It is nearly complete for a one-optional-param read tool; only timing/cost expectations are absent.

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 100% and there is a single optional parameter with its own schema description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about printer_id or the single-printer default behavior, but the schema already covers it.

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 action and resource: a supervision check that returns a live frame, comparison frame, telemetry, anomalies, and recent events. This is clearly distinguishable from get_snapshot, get_events or printer_status by its composite diagnostic nature, though it doesn't name any sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the stated goal of 'judging whether the print is failing', and the phrase 'when available' signals a conditional path. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_snapshot, printer_status or get_events, nor any exclusions — the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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