mne_find_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool finds events and stores them under events_name, which is a core behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., that the Raw object must already be loaded in the session), whether the Raw object is modified, or what happens if no events are found. This partial transparency warrants a mid-range score.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output storage, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values are likely documented, so the description can focus on other context. However, it omits important prerequisites such as the requirement that the Raw object must be loaded or that stim_channel may be auto-detected if not specified. While the tool is relatively simple, these missing contextual details prevent a higher score.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does provide context for events_name ('Stores them under events_name') and stim_channel ('on a stim channel'), but it does not explain raw_name, which is left ambiguous. Since it partially clarifies the parameters but not fully, a score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to find stimulus/trigger events on a stim channel of a Raw object. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('stim channel'), and the mention of 'stim channel' differentiates it from the sibling tool mne_events_from_annotations, which deals with annotations rather than stim channels.

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 implies when to use this tool (for finding events on a stim channel), but it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that mne_events_from_annotations should be used when events are in annotations rather than a stim channel. Thus, the usage context is only implied, not explicitly stated.

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