get_event_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes grouping behavior but does not disclose details like read-only nature, potential time-range scope, or side effects. Since it's a read operation, the lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable, but additional context would improve it.

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, front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second suggests a use case. No fluff.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, an output schema, and a simple read operation. The description covers the function and use case sufficiently for basic selection. It could mention the default timezone behavior, but the schema provides the parameter 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?

The input schema fully documents the single optional parameter (timezone) with its description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable.

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 states the tool returns a summary of events grouped by label, camera, and day, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling event tools like get_event (single event) and get_events (list), though it does not explicitly differentiate from summary tools like get_recording_summary.

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?

It provides a clear use case—understanding detection patterns over time—which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so no exclusions are given.

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