get_eventbridge_details

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return data but does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. It is adequate for a simple read operation but could be more transparent.

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 sentences: first lists what is returned, second provides usage context. No redundant words or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no inputs, clear output), the description covers what is returned and when to use. It does not explain return format or error cases, but these are minimal risks. Slightly more detail on output structure would raise the score.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the verb (Returns) and resource (EventBridge rules) and lists specific fields (name, state, schedule expression, event pattern, target Lambda function names). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on all rules with no filtering.

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?

Explicitly says when to call: 'when checking what schedule or event triggers a Lambda, or when reviewing rule coverage across the account.' Provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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