zwave_associations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the read behavior and error case but does not explicitly state it is read-only, rate limits, or auth requirements. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is concise with a clear structure: purpose, return format, error, then args in bullet list. No wasted words, but could be slightly more compact.

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?

No output schema, so description explains return value (keyed by group id, list of targets). Error handling covered. Parameter explanation sufficient. Lacks when-to-use guidance, but otherwise 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning for both parameters: node_id with example and endpoint with default behavior. This compensates for schema lack, though could be more detailed about endpoint's effect.

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 'List a node's current associations, keyed by group id.' It specifies the verb (List), resource (node's associations), and return format. Distinguishes from sibling tools like zwave_add_association and zwave_remove_association.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., zwave_association_groups, zwave_add_association). Only mentions error handling (ValueError) but lacks context for selection.

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