apple_calendar_get_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only:' adds nothing new. What does add value is the enumeration of returned fields (notes, recurrence, URL, attendees, alarms) — meaningful disclosure given there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, and the returned-field list is compact. The 'Read-only:' prefix is a small redundancy against annotations that already state this.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the return-value burden and partially meets it by naming the fields returned. However, it omits any explanation of the two required inputs or failure behavior when an event/calendar is not found, leaving real gaps for a lookup tool.

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?

Two required parameters (uid, calendar) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about them. It does not clarify whether calendar is a name, ID, or path, nor what form a uid takes, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (event) and enumerates the payload it returns (notes, recurrence, URL, attendees, alarms). This distinguishes it from apple_calendar_list_events and the mutation siblings like create/update/delete_event, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'get' suggests fetching a single event's details in contrast to list_events. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no instruction on when to prefer this over reading an event via list_events.

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