github_issues_get_event

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, or auth requirements. The 4-word description provides none of this, leaving the agent to guess. A GET operation is implied but not stated.

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?

While very concise, the description is underspecified. It conveys minimal information and fails to earn its place by omitting critical details. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.

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 lack of output schema and the high number of sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how this event retrieval differs from listing events. The agent cannot reliably select this tool based on this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'event_id') are merely the parameter names. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 an issue event' clearly states the verb and resource, but it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like github_issues_get, github_issues_get_comment, or github_issues_list_events. It does not clarify what constitutes an 'issue event' versus other event types, making it vague for selection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as github_issues_list_events or github_issues_get. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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