outlook_get_event

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It states it returns a 'full calendar event' with specific fields, implying a read operation. However, it doesn't disclose error conditions (e.g., missing event ID), read-only nature, or any rate limits.

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?

One sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words. Eminently 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and returned fields. However, it omits context about which calendar is used (default or selected) and error handling, which is important for 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 single parameter 'event_id' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no explanation of what the event ID is or how to obtain it (e.g., from list_events). The schema only says it's a required string.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('Get'), resource ('calendar event'), and what is included ('body, attendees, organizer, and recurrence'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like outlook_list_events (which lists) and outlook_update_event (which modifies).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as outlook_list_events or outlook_get_contact. No mention of prerequisites or context (e.g., requiring a specific calendar).

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