get_event_json

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

Without annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: returning None-valued fields instead of omitting them. It also implies read-only behavior via 'variant of get_event'. However, it does not mention authorization or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple get tool.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose and behavior, followed by a clear parameter explanation. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on the key behavioral difference and parameter source. It does not need to detail return values. However, it could mention any prerequisites or error scenarios for full 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?

The description explains that event_id is the event rowid as returned by other tools, adding context beyond the schema's integer type. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable, though there is only one parameter.

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 it is a machine-readable variant of get_event, specifying that it returns None-valued fields when absent for a stable shape. This distinguishes it from get_event and other siblings, providing a clear purpose.

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 implies use for machine readability and stable shape, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_event or get_today_json. The mention of event_id being returned by get_today_json etc. hints at a workflow, but lacks clear guidelines.

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