explore_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'the most recent items per label across all cameras' and groups results by label, which describes the output behavior. However, it does not mention any side effects, limitations, or additional behavioral traits beyond the summary nature. For a no-param read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, immediately states the core function, and provides a use case without excessive detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema provided), the description covers the essential purpose and return structure. It explains grouping and recency, and adds a practical use case. It lacks any caveats or limits, but the presence of output schema reduces the need for such detail. Overall, it is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects that with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter info, but with no parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4. No extra semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'events' with a clear scope: 'recent events grouped by label' and 'across all cameras.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_events or get_event_summary by emphasizing the grouped summary nature and the 'what's been happening?' default view.

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 suggests a use case ('useful as a default "what's been happening?" view') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides implied context but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling differentiation for usage.

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