zont_raw_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Получить историю' makes the read-only nature obvious and the parameter notes add context (unix time, inclusive bounds), but there is no mention of authentication, result-size limits, or pagination behavior for potentially large event histories.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a scannable parameter list. Every line earns its place; the only mild redundancy is the short event-type illustration line.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. With all five parameters documented and the time-range semantics pinned down, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the vocabulary of event types remains unspecified.

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, and it largely does: all five parameters are explained, with mintime/maxtime specified as inclusive unix timestamps and except_ linked to the API's 'except' field. The one gap is that valid event-type strings for only/except_ are never characterized.

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+resource+scope: retrieve a device's event history for a given time interval, and enumerates representative event kinds (arm/disarm, alarms, GPS/GSM, autostart). It is clear what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as zont_load_data or the archive tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 event-type examples imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g. archive generation/loading) and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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