lookup_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, and it discloses only that the payload is 'full wiki YAML' (implying a large, untrimmed response). It never states that this is a read-only lookup, how it relates to cached wiki state or refresh_wiki, or what happens when a name is unknown.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the category vocabulary. No filler, though the category list would read better if it were tied explicitly to the category parameter.

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 explained, and the category vocabulary covers one of two parameters. However, with zero schema description coverage and no usage guidance, an agent still cannot tell from the definition alone how to choose this over lookup_command or what a valid event name looks like.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does enumerate the valid 'category' values (standard, eden, group, mission, multiplayer, music, projectile, user_action, user_interface), which is real added meaning, but says nothing about the required 'name' parameter, such as expected format or exact-match behavior.

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 names a specific resource and return type: 'Full wiki YAML for an event handler.' Combined with the tool name it is clear this is a read of an event-handler definition, and the word 'event' implicitly separates it from lookup_command. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest sibling, so it is a clear 4 rather than a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus lookup_command, search, or get_tutorial, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The category enumeration hints at filtering but never says what the category argument is for or when to supply it.

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