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 mentions 'detailed information' and 'full stacktrace and context', which hints at output behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses sensitive event data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific event') and adds useful context ('including full stacktrace and context'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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's complexity (single-parameter read operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource and hints at output content, but lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavioral constraints, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'event_id' well-documented as a UUID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific event'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_events' by specifying retrieval of a single event, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_issue' or 'get_stacktrace' which might have overlapping scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_events' for multiple events or 'get_stacktrace' for stacktrace-specific data. It implies usage for a single event but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context.

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