get_workflow_event

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 does disclose one useful behavioral trait, that payload fields are decoded when present, which tells the agent the response may or may not contain decoded data. However it says nothing about permissions, behavior for a missing event ID, or pagination/truncation of large payloads.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, leading with the verb and resource and appending the qualifier about decoded payloads. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight. It mentions decoded payload fields but does not describe the shape of a returned event, error behavior for an unknown event_id, or any mutation/safety context; for a read-only getter this is adequate but thin.

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%, so all four parameters (run_id, event_id, namespace, workflow_id) are already documented in the schema with their types and the optional/required split. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single workflow history event.' The word 'single' implies retrieval of one event rather than a list, but it never names the sibling get_workflow_history, which is the tool an agent is most likely to confuse it with, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to fetch a single event instead of calling get_workflow_history or get_workflow_result, and no stated prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer the choice entirely from the name and description.

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