get_map_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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('get') but does not state what happens if the event is not found, the return format, or whether any side effects occur. This is minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. While brevity can be good, here it omits necessary context, making it arguably incomplete rather than efficiently concise.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks important context such as the return value, relationship to sibling tools, and any behavioral caveats. Without an output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse to fully support correct 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?

The schema has two numeric parameters (mapId, eventId) with no descriptions, and the context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or relationship of these parameters beyond what their names already suggest, failing to compensate for the lack of schema hints.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('specific event from a map'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool get_map_events, which likely lists events, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_map_events, update_map_event, or create_map_event. The description does not mention any prerequisites or contexts where this tool would be preferred.

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