teamleader_event_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey the tool's behavior. It indicates a read operation via 'Get,' but it does not disclose error behavior for nonexistent IDs, authentication requirements, or what is included in 'details.' This is a basic level of transparency.

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 a single sentence containing only essential information. It is front-loaded and has no filler words, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity and single parameter, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks details about the response format and error handling. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'details' means or what the return value contains, which it does not. Still, the core purpose and input are communicated clearly.

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 input schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as an Event UUID, giving 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond mentioning 'by ID,' which is redundant. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is high.

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 tool retrieves details for a specific calendar event using its ID. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'calendar event' precisely define the action, and it is distinct from sibling tools like events_list and event_create.

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 implies usage when an event ID is available, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. For example, it does not say 'use events_list to find the ID first' or 'use event_create to make a new event.' This is adequate but vague.

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