get_event

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 only says 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The listing of return fields is more about output content than behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. It is efficient and clear without redundancy.

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 get tool, the description covers purpose, key return fields, and usage context. It lacks an output schema but lists enough about the return content. It does not mention error scenarios or permission requirements, but these are not critical for selection and invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three params (org, project, event_id), so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, just references 'by its ID' which is already covered.

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 action ('Get') and specific resource ('full details of a specific event by its ID'), listing included data (exception values, stack trace, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_issue_events (which lists events) and get_issue (which gets an issue, not an event) by emphasizing a specific event's full details.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to debug a specific occurrence,' providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though siblings are evident from context.

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