activitywatch_get_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what format the 'raw events' are returned in. The description is functionally adequate but lacks important operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'raw events' means in terms of data structure, doesn't mention any limitations or constraints, and provides no context about the ActivityWatch system. The agent would need to guess about the return format and operational characteristics.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value regarding parameter usage or semantics.

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 ('Get raw events') and resource ('from an ActivityWatch bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'activitywatch_query_examples' or 'activitywatch_run_query', which might also retrieve event data but with different approaches or formats.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'activitywatch_query_examples' and 'activitywatch_run_query' that might serve similar purposes, there's no indication of when this raw event retrieval is preferred over those query-based approaches, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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