zwave_list_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output fields in detail, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention important behavioral traits such as whether the operation has side effects, requires authentication, or has performance implications. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and resource, followed by a bullet-like list of output fields. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, standard list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the output fields and directs users to zwave_node_info for more detail. It does not cover edge cases like an empty node list, but this is a minor omission for a straightforward listing 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?

The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. As per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly describes the output without mentioning parameters.

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 lists all Z-Wave nodes with a one-line summary, listing the specific fields included. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling zwave_node_info, which provides full detail on a single node. The verb 'list' and resource 'all Z-Wave nodes' are specific and unambiguous.

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 tells when to use zwave_node_info instead ('Use zwave_node_info for full detail on a single node'), providing clear guidance on context. It does not, however, mention other sibling tools like zwave_controller_info or zwave_node_config, which could offer alternative functionality. This is a minor gap, but the key alternative is covered.

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