get_protect_event_summary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states this is a read-only operation, aggregates event counts by type and camera activity, and requires configured credentials. This adds useful behavioral context, though it does not detail the exact response structure or edge-case behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, alternatives, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 aggregation tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, prerequisites, alternatives, and parameter semantics. It gives enough detail for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description's parameter guidance mirrors the schema exactly. It does not add new meaning beyond the structured definitions, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific operation: summarizing Protect events over a lookback window and aggregating counts by type and camera activity. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by saying to use get_motion_events, get_smart_detections, or get_recent_protect_activity for underlying or raw event records.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use this for a single high-level tally') and names the alternatives for more detailed data. It also provides a concrete prerequisite: Protect credentials must be configured for the console.

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