get_event_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says it retrieves. It says nothing about whether a missing ID errors or returns empty, whether permissions are required, or whether access is logged – all relevant for an event-log audit tool.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a compact args block with no wasted prose. The "Args:" formatting is slightly form-heavy for a single parameter but stays short.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It is still thin on failure behavior and ID provenance, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly the first time.

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%, and the single parameter is a bare integer in the schema, so the description does add value by identifying it as a numeric identifier of an event log entry. It does not explain how to obtain a valid ID (e.g., from list_event_logs output), which is the real gap at 0% 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 and resource ("Retrieves a specific event log entry"), and the word "specific" signals single-record lookup by ID rather than a listing. It does not name the obvious sibling list_event_logs, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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: retrieving a single known entry via event_log_id versus browsing with list_event_logs. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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