Z-Wave Log

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the types of log entries included (transmit failures, routing issues, network events), which is beyond basic safety information.

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?

Two extremely concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds value about content and usage. No wasteful words.

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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's function and input. It explains what the logs show and why they are useful, leaving no gaps.

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 no parameters; the schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'recent Z-Wave network log entries' are clearly stated. The description specifies the content (transmit failures, routing issues, network events) and the usage context (diagnosing connectivity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnose_zwave_network.

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 explicitly says 'Essential for diagnosing Z-Wave device connectivity problems,' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or point to alternative tools like diagnose_zwave_network.

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