Get PromptJang event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the tool returns delivery attempts and last delivery error, which clarifies the operational depth of the read operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and selection key, then immediately states the inspection use case. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 single-record read tool, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how to select it, and why an agent would use it. The rich annotations and existing output schema cover the remaining concerns like idempotency and return structure.

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 both parameters (event_id and response_format) are already fully documented by the schema. The description reinforces that the lookup is 'by event ID' but adds no new semantic details about the parameters themselves, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('Read'), a clear resource ('one PromptJang event and its delivery attempts'), and a precise selector ('by event ID'). It also lists the particular data points available (state, response codes, timing, retry count, last delivery error), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_unread or get_message.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to inspect current state, response codes, timing, retry count, and the last delivery error.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough that an agent can determine when this tool is appropriate.

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