simplisafe_get_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: results are newest-first, and each event carries both an ISO timestamp and raw epoch seconds, which matters for parsing. It omits rate limits or pagination/truncation behavior at the 50-event cap.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the most decision-relevant content (what events, where from, ordering) is front-loaded before the return-format note. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully describes the return shape (event categories, dual timestamp format, newest-first ordering), which compensates well. Authentication needs and the 50-event cap's implications are left to the schema and annotations, leaving only minor gaps.

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 all four parameters (sid, event_type, num_events, from_timestamp) are already fully documented in the schema, including defaults, ranges, and the 50-event cap. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent events recorded by the base station'), then enumerates the event categories returned (arm/disarm, sensor opens, lock/unlock, alarms, errors) and the sort order. This is precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from state-listing siblings like simplisafe_list_sensors or simplisafe_get_system.

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 its usage context (retrieving recent event history, newest first) but never states when to prefer it over siblings such as simplisafe_get_system or simplisafe_list_sensors, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable from purpose rather than explicitly guided.

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