simplisafe_list_sensors

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that by describing a read-only listing operation. It adds useful contextual detail about the returned statuses and filtering behavior, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or side effects of force_update. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with no wasted words: the verb and resource come first, followed by device categories, statuses, and filter syntax. It avoids repeating schema boilerplate and delivers the most important information in a compact, well-ordered format.

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 read-only listing tool with zero required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it names relevant device categories and statuses, and the schema fills in the remaining parameter details. The main gap is that it does not steer an agent away from the overlapping simplisafe_list_locks sibling, but this is not critical for actually invoking 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, but the description adds genuine value by explaining the type_name filter with concrete examples such as 'entry', 'motion_v2', and 'lock'. It also clarifies that the result includes battery, offline, and triggered status, which informs how problems_only is meant to be used. The force_update and problems_only parameters are not described in the main text, but the schema already documents them adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and object, 'List the sensors and devices paired to a system', and enumerates concrete device categories such as entry sensors, motion, glass break, smoke/CO, and locks. It clearly identifies what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling simplisafe_list_locks, which overlaps with the locks category.

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 actionable filter guidance for type_name with concrete examples like 'entry' and 'motion_v2', which helps an agent narrow results. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over simplisafe_list_locks or simplisafe_get_system, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative routing. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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