simplisafe_get_system

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-mutating call against an external service. The description usefully adds what state is actually surfaced (including pending base-station messages), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or freshness of the returned snapshot. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the returned-state list following. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause conveys information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the state categories returned, which is the key thing an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The only gap is operational context such as whether the snapshot is cached or how it differs from get_settings/get_events.

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 there, including the optional-when-one-system / required-when-many rule. The description adds nothing about sid, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters is correct.

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 (one SimpliSafe system's current state), then enumerates the exact fields returned: alarm state, alarming flag, base-station connectivity, power/battery, and pending messages. This distinguishes it from siblings like simplisafe_list_systems (enumeration) and simplisafe_get_settings (configuration) without needing to open a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this for a live status snapshot of a single system. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how it relates to simplisafe_get_settings, simplisafe_get_events, or simplisafe_healthcheck, and no note about polling or staleness.

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