zwave_node_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It transparently states the tool is read-only, describes the return content (default, allowed range, unit, size, writeability), and mentions error behavior. This is comprehensive for a read operation.

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 compact yet thorough: a one-sentence purpose, followed by detailed return description, and a dedicated Args section. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.

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 one parameter and existence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: what it returns, error handling, and example. No gaps for an agent to misuse.

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%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'node_id' is the Z-Wave node id and provides an example 'e.g. 5'. This clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's type/required fields.

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 explicitly states 'List a node's configuration parameters and their current values' and provides specific examples like LED behavior, report intervals, motion sensitivity. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on device-specific tuning knobs, unlike other zwave tools for controller info, node list, 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 clearly indicates it is a read-only view and mentions that setting parameters is a planned follow-up, implying when to use this tool versus future write operations. It also documents that ValueError is raised for unknown node ids, providing error handling guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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