get_events

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context that events are AI-detected objects and that filters can narrow results, which is useful. Yet it does not disclose key behaviors such as the default limit of 20, ordering of results, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 purpose, and contains no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's main function and provides useful context about event semantics.

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 output schema exists, return values do not need explanation. The description covers basic functionality and filter possibilities, but it lacks context for choosing among the many sibling event-related tools and omits important default behaviors like the 20-event limit. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description does provide a brief summary of filter categories (camera, label, zone, time range) but does not add meaning beyond the individual parameter descriptions already present in the schema.

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 that the tool lists detected events from Frigate with optional filters. It uses a specific verb ('List') plus a resource, and the meaning is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_event_summary or search_events, so it falls 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 description mentions using filters to narrow results by camera, label, zone, or time range, which gives some context about when to use the tool. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or scenarios where other sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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