get_motion_events

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks it read-only, and the description reinforces the read-only nature while adding genuine behavioral detail: it queries Protect events, maps them to camera names/human-readable timestamps, returns count and per-event list, and requires Protect credentials. This goes beyond annotation-only information.

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, followed by concise read-only/requirements/alternatives and a compact Args block. No filler; each section contributes.

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?

For a read-only query with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will get (count and per-event list with camera name/timestamp), how to constrain results, and which credential prerequisites exist. That is sufficient to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

Input schema already covers all four parameters with the same descriptions and defaults, so the description adds no new meaning for hours, limit, camera_id, or device. The Args section is useful for visibility but not semantically additive beyond 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return recent camera motion events, resolved to camera names and timestamps.' It also names sibling alternatives, immediately distinguishing this tool from get_smart_detections and get_protect_event_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?

Explicitly states when to use alternatives: get_smart_detections for AI classification, get_protect_event_summary for aggregate counts. Also gives the lookback-window context and required credentials, making the selection criteria clear.

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