simplisafe_get_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real content beyond that by scoping the returned data (settings plus wifi/cellular signal, wall power, backup battery, RF jamming) and by declaring what is deliberately omitted (PINs).

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose before the field enumeration and the exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned settings and health signals, and it covers the one ambiguity risk (PINs). Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single sid parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the optional-when-single-system rule. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (base-station settings) and then enumerates the actual settings and health fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The explicit exclusion of PINs and the pointer to simplisafe_get_pins distinguishes it from a plausible sibling.

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?

Gives an explicit negative boundary ('Does not include PINs — use simplisafe_get_pins for those'), which routes the agent to the right alternative for the adjacent use case. It does not distinguish this from simplisafe_get_system, which is the other obvious confusion risk, so it falls short of a full 5.

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