dynatrace_managed_get_event_details

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description's 'Get' semantics are consistent with that — no contradiction. However, the description contributes no behavioral context beyond the annotation: no mention of response contents, error behavior, or the fact that ALL_ENVIRONMENTS aggregates results across environments. Since the safety profile is already carried by the annotation, the description adds nothing extra.

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 10-word sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb. The word 'specific' adds the lookup-vs-list distinction, so every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though brevity comes at the cost of workflow guidance captured elsewhere.

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 two-parameter read tool, the 100%-covered schema and readOnlyHint annotation handle most needs, and the environment_alias parameter description is notably thorough. Gaps remain: there is no output schema, so return values are not described, and no guidance is given on the list-then-get workflow. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are well documented in the schema: eventId identifies the target and environment_alias explains the get_environments_info cross-reference plus the ALL_ENVIRONMENTS special value. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, the description need not repeat parameter details, and it adds none.

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-resource pair: 'Get detailed information' about 'a specific event,' which clearly differentiates this from list-oriented siblings like dynatrace_managed_list_events and resource-specific detail tools like get_problem_details or get_slo_details. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of a 5, but the resource term makes the intent unambiguous.

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 call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that dynatrace_managed_list_events is the natural precursor for obtaining an eventId, nor does it state any exclusions or selection criteria. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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