get_epoch_around_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the online nature and the ring-buffer constraint with a concrete example (default 60s buffer = last minute), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention decimation/page limits or what happens when the event is no longer in the buffer, but the disclosure provided is substantive.

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 compact — two short paragraphs with effectively three sentences. Every sentence earns its place: it names the action, gives concrete use cases, and states the critical timing constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 7 parameters fully documented in the schema and an output schema present, the description's job is moderate. It handles the online-epoaching rationale and the ring-buffer constraint, which are the non-obvious aspects an agent needs. It could mention the decimation/max_samples behavior or failure modes, but for an online inspection tool with rich schema coverage, this is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds context explaining that 'label=None' takes the most recent event of any kind — though this is also in the schema. The description's online/window framing groups the tmin/tmax parameters conceptually. It doesn't add much beyond the schema's already-thorough parameter documentation, but the description reinforces the temporal semantics implicitly.

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 tool extracts 'the signal window around an event that already occurred.' It gives specific use cases (inspect response to recent stimulus, verify stimulation artifact placement) that distinguish it from sibling epoching/stream tools like read_window and get_events.

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 it ('inspect the response to the most recent stimulus, or verify a stimulation artifact lands where you expect') and states the key constraint (event must be inside the ring buffer). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the online-epoching framing distinguishes it from recording-based tools.

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