Mne Find Events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful side effect: results are stored under events_name. However, it does not state whether the Raw object is modified, whether an existing events_name is overwritten, or what happens when no events are found.

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 entire description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the storage side effect is stated immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main action and side effect. However, it omits default stim_channel behavior and offers no usage context relative to sibling tools, so an agent might still need to infer important invocation details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps all three parameters loosely: raw_name is the Raw object, stim_channel is the channel searched, and events_name is the storage target. Still, it does not explain the behavior when stim_channel is null, leaving a key invocation detail underspecified.

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 names a specific verb ('Find'), the exact resource ('stimulus/trigger events'), the location ('stim channel'), and the container ('Raw object'). It also states where results are stored ('events_name'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mne_events_from_annotations and mne_load_raw.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as mne_events_from_annotations, nor any mention of prerequisites like having a Raw object loaded in the session. The description says what the tool does but not when or when not to use it.

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