get_event

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

Annotations explicitly mark the tool as readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the core safety is well declared. The description adds the unique 'persistent opaque handle' identifier, which is useful. However, it discloses no side effects, response format, or edge cases (e.g., behavior if handle is invalid), so it adds moderate value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely short (6 words) and front-loaded with the key action. It earns its place but could benefit from a bit more guidance. However, given the simplicity of the tool, brevity is acceptable.

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 a single required parameter (0% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description fails to explain how to obtain the handle, return behavior, or error handling. Compared to sibling tools (e.g., list_events, find_conflicts), get_event omits critical context needed for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'persistent opaque handle' without explaining the format, origin, or typical sources of this handle. The parameter is required but lacks any usage hints or validation rules, creating a significant gap for an agent to correctly craft the request.

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 the tool retrieves an event by a handle, which is a clear verb+resource pattern. However, it does not distinguish itself from tools like list_events or find_conflicts, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific method.

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 use this tool versus alternative event retrieval tools like list_events or find_conflicts. The description does not explain prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain the handle) or contexts where this is preferred.

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