simplisafe_healthcheck

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reports whether the refresh token is configured/working, the resolved user ID, and the number of active systems. This tells the agent what diagnostic information it will receive without promising any mutations or side effects.

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 two sentences: the first defines the operation, the second enumerates the outputs, and the final usage cue 'Start here when other tools fail' earns its place. It is front-loaded with action and purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return contract by listing the three key pieces of information the health check produces. It also provides a usage trigger. It could theoretically detail error behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only healthcheck this is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the empty schema is fully covered. The description need not add parameter-level detail because there is nothing to configure; the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Check that the server can authenticate to SimpliSafe and reach the API') and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list systems, get sensor data, or change alarm state. It also specifies the outputs the agent can expect, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Start here when other tools fail' gives an explicit when-to-use instruction, positioning this as a diagnostic entry point. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this should precede troubleshooting on other SimpliSafe tools.

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