Print a TEPRA label

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the most important behavioral trait: the tool consumes a physical resource (tape). It also warns to preview first if layout is uncertain, which is a significant side-effect disclosure. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, printer connectivity requirements, or whether the operation is blocking.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('Render and print') and includes a critical caveat about tape consumption and preview guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 params) and lack of output schema, the description provides essential context: purpose, resource consumption, and a preview recommendation. It could mention what happens on success/failure or how it interacts with printer discovery, but the core workflow is adequately covered. The schema handles parameter details, so the description remains appropriately scoped.

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%, with each of the 14 parameters clearly described with types, defaults, and constraints. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond this. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Render and print a label on the TEPRA SR5900P.' It uses a specific verb ('render and print') and a specific resource (label on a named printer). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tepra_preview (preview only) and tepra_status (status check).

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 description gives clear usage context: 'Consumes tape — preview first if the layout is uncertain.' This implicitly recommends using the preview tool before printing and warns about the cost of misuse. While it doesn't explicitly exclude use cases, it provides a practical guideline for when to print vs. preview.

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