z2m_interview_device

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the device may be briefly unavailable and that battery devices must be awake. It also details what internally happens (re-reads endpoints, clusters, basic attributes), adding valuable behavioral context not present in structured data.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then caveats, then use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral effects, prerequisites, alternatives, and a recovery scenario. Combined with the annotations, it gives an agent everything necessary to decide when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter 'device' with a clear description ('Device friendly_name or ieee_address.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the usage guidance (check interview_state) is helpful context.

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 're-interview' with a clear resource 'device', explains the action (re-reads endpoints, clusters, basic attributes), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool z2m_configure_device. It is unmistakable what this tool does.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (firmware upgrade, stuck interview), a prerequisite (check interview_state via z2m_get_device), and an alternative (z2m_configure_device when reporting stopped). This is clear guidance on selection and context.

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