get_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, and the enumerated detail types hint at scope, but there is nothing about permissions, whether capture_id must be an open capture, or error behavior when an event ID is absent.

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 that names the verb, resource, and returned detail categories with zero filler. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, with two required, undocumented parameters and no annotation coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about capture_id and about how this tool relates to inspect_event.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It gestures at 'one event ID' but never explains the required capture_id or the relationship between capture_id and event_id.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('event') and enumerates the detail kinds returned (draw, dispatch, copy, marker, present), so the agent knows what this retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'inspect_event', leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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 alternatives such as inspect_event or get_capture_summary. The only implicit cue is 'one event ID', which does not constitute usage guidance.

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