get_game_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the returned definition is the *effective* one after core/game/mod override resolution, which tells the agent the result may differ from raw source files.

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 sentence with the verb, resource, return content, and the override caveat in a tight parenthetical. Nothing wasted and the key scope qualifier is front-loaded.

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 shape needs no prose, and both required parameters are schema-documented. For a two-param read tool this is nearly complete; only the relationship to list_game_events is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% — both 'game' (cs2, deadlock) and 'name' (e.g. player_death) are documented inline. The description adds only indirect meaning via the override mention and does not restate formats, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (game event) and adds what is returned: fields and types. It reads clearly against neighbors like get_entity and get_schema_class by naming the 'game event' domain, though it never names list_game_events as the contrasting sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the detail lookup complementing list_game_events, but the description never states when to call it versus that lister or versus get_schema_class. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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