simplisafe_get_system

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, and the description adds the specific categories of state the agent can expect. It does not add details about auth, failure behavior, polling, or response format, but for an annotated read-only tool the main behavioral disclosure is covered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation and lists exactly what state is included, with no filler or repetition. Every listed item—alarm state, alarming, connectivity, power/battery, base-station messages—earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only tool, the description plus schema is nearly complete: the description identifies the returned state categories and the schema resolves the sid optionality. A small gap is the absence of any hint about the response structure, but the listed fields compensate because there is no output schema.

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 input schema already documents the single sid parameter at 100% coverage, including the optional-when-one-system / required-when-multiple rule. The description only reinforces 'one system' and adds no new parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description names the specific operation (get current state) and the resource (one SimpliSafe system) and enumerates the state components: alarm state, alarming, connectivity, power/battery, and base-station messages. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like simplisafe_list_systems or simplisafe_get_settings, even without naming them.

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 wording implies this is for fetching a live snapshot of a single system rather than listing systems or changing settings, so the intended use is inferable. However, the description never states when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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