printer_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It enumerates the returned data fields, which is useful, but never states that this is a read-only operation, whether it hits the network/live hardware, latency, or failure modes when the printer is offline. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a meaningful gap.

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; the content list is the information, not padding.

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, the description takes on the job of describing the return payload and does so by naming the state categories included (temps, fans, layer, HMS errors, AMS trays). It is nearly complete for a one-optional-param read tool; only the read-only/behavioral framing is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose semantics are fully documented in the schema ('may be omitted when only one printer is configured'). The description adds nothing about printer_id, but with 100% schema coverage the schema already carries the load, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (one printer) and enumerates the payload (temps, fans, layer, HMS errors, AMS trays), so an agent can distinguish it from aggregate siblings like fleet_overview. It never names a contrasting sibling or states the action verb explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 word 'live' implies this is for current-status polling rather than historical lookup (get_history) or snapshot capture (get_snapshot), so usage is inferable. However, no sibling is named and no when-not condition is given, leaving the agent to guess at alternatives.

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