get_events_around

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-only retrieval operation, but it does not disclose what happens when neither timestamp nor eventId is provided, whether the parameters are mutually exclusive, or how the window boundary is treated. The 300ms default is only visible in the schema, not reinforced here.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and scope, earning every word.

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 four parameters, only one required, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify whether eventId and timestamp are alternatives, what the default behavior is when neither is supplied, or what the returned 'contextual window' contains, leaving an agent to guess at 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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only mild context by tying eventId and timestamp to the notion of a 'specific' target and 'immediately before and after', but it does not explain the relationship or precedence between the two optional target parameters.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a resource ('events'), and a precise scope (immediately before and after a timestamp or event ID). This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like get_events or get_timeline by emphasizing the localized 'window' nature.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs a contextual window around a specific timestamp or event ID, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like get_events or get_timeline, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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