zwave_controller_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the read-only nature by saying 'Get' and 'Returns', but does not explicitly state no side effects or permissions required. The behavior is implied but not fully disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return fields, usage recommendation, and specific output detail.

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 simple, parameterless info tool, the description is complete. It lists all major return fields, explains a complex output field (controller_type), and gives usage guidance. No output schema exists, so this adequately covers expected behavior.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage trivially. The description adds no parameter info, which is fine. It compensates by detailing the output structure, including the controller_type format, providing value beyond the empty schema.

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 'Get Z-Wave controller and network summary' and lists specific return fields. It distinguishes from siblings by advising 'Use this first for a quick health snapshot', implying a high-level overview role.

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 recommends 'Use this first for a quick health snapshot of the mesh', providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives for deeper diagnostics.

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