zwave_begin_inclusion

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

Discloses that the tool returns immediately upon entering inclusion mode, not after node addition, and that device pairing is required separately. Warns about the stateless server limitation for S2. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does so well, though it could mention potential side effects like timeout behavior.

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?

Concise and well-structured: a primary statement, followed by a note on behavior, a crucial limitation, a reference to a sibling tool, and the args explanation. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Covers the main behavioral aspects: return behavior, required device action, and security limitation. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to specify return values. It does not mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., already in inclusion mode), but given the tool's simplicity, it is fairly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description provides essential meaning for the 'strategy' parameter by listing the four possible values and explaining the security context. It adds value beyond the schema's type and default, though it could elaborate on when each strategy is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: putting the controller into inclusion mode to add a new node. It distinguishes from exclusion and other operations by mentioning zwave_stop_inclusion and the sibling tool zwave_begin_exclusion. The verb 'put' and resource 'controller' are specific.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (to add a node) and a crucial note about the limitation of S2 security bootstrap, directing to the Z-Wave JS UI for that case. Also mentions cancellation via zwave_stop_inclusion. Lacks explicit wording on when not to use, but the limitations effectively guide the agent.

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