zwave_association_groups

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

Describes return shape (mapping of group id to properties) and error condition (ValueError). No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's a read-only operation or discuss side effects, so it's adequate but not detailed.

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?

Very concise: short paragraph with clear structure. Main purpose upfront, followed by return details, usage hint, error info, and parameter descriptions. No unnecessary 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?

Without annotations or output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, input parameters with defaults, output shape, error conditions, and usage context (links to another tool). Complete for a list tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: 'node_id' as source Z-Wave node id with example, and 'endpoint' as optional index defaulting to root device. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'node's association groups and their capabilities'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'zwave_add_association' and 'zwave_associations' by specifying it lists groups, not associations.

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?

Explicitly states to use this tool to find the group to pass to 'zwave_add_association', providing clear context. Also mentions error handling for unknown node ids. Could be improved by noting when not to use it, but still strong.

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