日历-事件详情

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

The description signals a read-only behavior with '返回' and discloses the return scope (complete event info with domains and targets). However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover what happens for invalid or missing ids, the default id of 0, or any other behavioral edge cases.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core operation and includes the most useful return details. Every part earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the main operation and return contents. But it lacks guidance on obtaining a valid event_id and does not address the surprising fact that no parameters are required, which could lead an agent to call it without meaningful input.

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. It only says 'by id', which maps to event_id but adds little beyond the parameter name. It does not explain where the id comes from, the meaning of the default 0, or that the parameter is effectively required.

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 a specific verb and resource: return a single calendar event's complete information by id, including domains and targets. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling calendar tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendar_range, calendar_month, or calendar_upcoming. The phrase 'by id' implies the agent should already have an event_id, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion info.

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