event_get_event_handlers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that event handlers define how Conductor responds to external events and can trigger workflows or actions. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. As a read operation, it is fairly 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?

The description is concise, with a main sentence and an extra paragraph providing context. While the extra paragraph is helpful, it could be trimmed without losing essential information. The structure is clear and 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the tool's purpose and parameters adequately. For a simple get tool with two optional parameters, it is sufficiently complete, though it could mention that it returns a list of handlers.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear plain-language explanations for both parameters: 'event' (optional filter by name) and 'active_only' (returns only active handlers, default True). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Gets all event handlers or filters by event name and active status', which clearly specifies the action (get) and resource (event handlers). The sibling tools are all task and workflow-related, so this tool is distinct in purpose.

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 indicates filtering by event and active status, which helps with when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but given the tool's focus on event handlers vs sibling tools, the context is clear.

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