get_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'This tool is read-only', which is a critical behavioral trait. It also implies a time-window behavior via 'since' seconds. However, it does not disclose details like ordering, pagination, or limits on returned events, which would be useful for a tool that fetches historical data. Given the read-only nature, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 with zero redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and then gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and it is easy to scan.

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 simple read-only getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, when to use it, and that it is safe. It could mention whether events are sorted or if there are any maximum limits, but these are not critical for a tool of this simplicity. The mention of alternatives is a strong plus.

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 schema has one parameter `since` with 0% description coverage. The description fully explains its meaning: 'from the last `since` seconds'. This adds clear semantic meaning beyond the type and default, making it easy for an agent to know what value to supply.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns recent timestamped NINA observatory events and their event-specific details'. It also clarifies the scope (time window) and differentiates from siblings by naming them ('use get_site_equipment_status and sequence_get_state for current status'). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs.

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 when to use the tool ('reconstruct sequence, equipment, safety, imaging, and error activity') and when not to, with named alternatives for current status. The guidance is actionable and covers both inclusion and exclusion conditions.

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