get_event

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'loads' and 'joins', implying read-only, but fails to mention error conditions, permissions, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. The description is insufficient for safe agent usage.

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, dense sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose and key details (loading by entity name, joining endpoints). The description is front-loaded with the main action and contains no wasted words.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the input source and the types of relations included in the output (actor, target, context, participants). However, it does not explain the return format or failure modes, leaving minor gaps.

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% for the single required parameter 'name'. The description adds value by clarifying that the name is an event entity name as returned by record_event or query_events, providing contextual sourcing beyond the schema's generic description.

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 loads a single recorded event by entity name and explicitly mentions the joining of role-typed endpoints (actor, target, context, participants). This specific verb+resource effectively distinguishes it from siblings like query_events (which lists events) and get_event_flow (flow analysis).

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 after obtaining an event name via record_event or query_events, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_event_flow or who_did_what. No guidance on when not to use it is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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