simplisafe_list_locks

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

With `readOnlyHint: true` already present, the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotation: it discloses that the tool polls the base station fresh by default and explains the rationale that stale lock status is worse than a slower response. This gives the agent important expectations about latency and data freshness without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's core output, the second explains a key behavioral default and its rationale. Every clause earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the important return contents: lock state, battery status, keypad connectivity, and the serial for `simplisafe_set_lock_state`. Combined with full parameter schema coverage and the readOnly annotation, an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for `force_update` by explaining why fresh polling is the default and why an agent may accept stale data for speed. That is meaningful semantic value beyond the schema, though `sid` remains adequately documented only in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('smart locks on a system'), and the exact information returned: current lock state, battery status, keypad connectivity, and the serial for `simplisafe_set_lock_state`. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from related siblings like `simplisafe_list_sensors` and `simplisafe_set_lock_state`.

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: to inspect lock states and obtain the serial needed by `simplisafe_set_lock_state`. It also explains the default polling behavior and the tradeoff between freshness and speed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use is well implied.

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