Diagnose Z-Wave Network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description goes beyond by detailing exactly what the tool reads and reports (controller state, network log, health metrics, issue remediation). This provides rich behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists specific output items. Every part is informative; no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description lists key output elements (controller readiness, transmit failures, unavailable devices, remediations), which is complete for a diagnostic report. However, it does not mention any timing or network access requirements, which could be useful for understanding tool behavior.

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 are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (by default). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, as no additional param info is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Z-Wave controller state plus recent network log'), then lists concrete outputs: controller readiness/version, transmit failures, unavailable devices, and recommended remediations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'diagnose_zigbee_network' and 'get_zwave_log'.

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 context for use is implied by the diagnostic purpose, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., diagnose_zigbee_network) is provided. The wording clearly frames it as a health check, so it's easy to infer.

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