common-get-item-workflow-event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose statement: nothing about ordering of entries, pagination, whether history is complete, or how the optional identity/language filters affect results.

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 zero waste, but it is arguably undersized for a 5-parameter tool, leaving no room for routing or behavioral notes.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is only minimally adequate. It does not explain defaults (e.g., master database), what a workflow history entry contains, or how filtering interacts, though the schema descriptions carry the per-parameter load.

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%, so every parameter (id, path, database, identity, language) is already documented in the schema, including the id/path exclusivity and the identity wildcard support. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (gets) and resource (workflow history entries for a specified item), which is meaningfully distinct from siblings like common-new-item-workflow-event and common-invoke-workflow. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a history lookup is appropriate versus invoking a workflow or creating a new event, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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