zwave_firmware_update_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool only reports status and that triggering updates is unsupported. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation, though it is implied.

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?

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. Front-loads the core purpose and includes a useful note about unsupported features. Excellent structure.

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 status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return format and a caveat. It is complete enough to use correctly, though it could hint at being a safe read operation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline is 3 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning since none exist, but that is acceptable.

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 reports on OTA firmware update status, using specific verb 'report' and resource 'firmware update'. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which cover associations, inclusion, routes, node config, etc.

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 implies usage for checking update progress but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though none exist among siblings. Adequate but minimal.

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