get_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' without explicitly confirming the read-only nature, auth requirements, error behavior (e.g., if the event is not found), or what constitutes 'details'. This is a minimal but not fully transparent disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the core action and resource efficiently, earning its place without any 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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'details' includes or any expected return format, which could leave the agent uncertain. Given the low complexity, this is a passable but not complete description.

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 has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (event_uuid), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but given the schema fully documents the parameter, this 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 'Get details of a specific event' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific event'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events (which lists multiple events) and cancel_event (which cancels an event). It precisely communicates the tool's function.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_events or list_event_invitees. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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