simplisafe_healthcheck

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and openWorld, and the description adds real context beyond them: it authenticates to SimpliSafe, verifies the refresh token is configured and working, and summarizes account state. It stops short of describing failure/report formats or rate-limit behavior, but the auth and connectivity semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: what it checks, what it returns, and when to invoke it. The invocation guidance is front-loaded after the purpose statement.

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 reported fields (token status, user id, active system count). For a zero-parameter read-only diagnostic with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed or missing.

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 (check) and resource (server authentication/API reachability) and enumerates exactly what it reports: refresh token status, resolved user id, and active system count. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list/get/set tools, none of which are diagnostics.

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?

"Start here when other tools fail" gives an explicit trigger condition that routes the agent to this tool first on failure. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but for a diagnostic entry point the when-to-use guidance is concrete.

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