grocy_print_shoppinglist

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-idempotent write with open-world effects. The description adds a genuinely useful behavior detail - printing has a real physical side effect on hardware and can be previewed by omitting confirm - but it repeats the schema's confirm text and says nothing about failure modes (e.g., no printer configured) or output.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The embedded raw endpoint path ('GET /api/print/shoppinglist/thermal') adds little for an agent choosing the tool but does no real harm.

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?

Reasonable for a small mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, but it omits what an agent would want before a physical print: the meaning of print_header, and what happens when no printer is configured or printing fails. The list default is only in the schema.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description only echoes the confirm dry-run semantics already spelled out in the schema. It says nothing about the list id (or its default) or what print_header toggles, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 verb and resource ('Print a shopping list') plus the target device ('configured thermal printer'), which is unambiguous. No sibling in the list prints a shopping list, so the tool is easy to distinguish, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative for non-thermal output.

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?

Gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to grocy_shopping_list (which manages list contents) or any other sibling. The only usage-type hint is the dry-run note, which concerns the parameter rather than tool selection.

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