simplisafe_list_sensors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network reach are covered. The description usefully discloses that battery, offline and triggered status are returned, but adds nothing about auth, rate limits, or the cost implied by `force_update` polling beyond what the schema says.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource before the filter hint. It is efficient, though the long device-type enumeration could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 carries the burden of describing what comes back and it does list the status fields. Combined with a fully-covered input schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the relationship to list_locks and pagination/count behavior is unaddressed.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including sid optionality and force_update behavior. The description only reinforces `type_name` with a couple of extra example values ('motion_v2'), a marginal addition over structured data — baseline 3 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 verb ('List') and resource ('sensors and devices paired to a system'), then enumerates the covered device classes and the returned status fields. It is distinguishable from siblings like simplisafe_list_systems and even clarifies it covers locks, which overlaps with simplisafe_list_locks.

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?

It explains the filtering use case via `type_name` and names example values, which implies when to narrow results. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over simplisafe_list_locks or simplisafe_get_system, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites — the usage context is only implied.

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