get_event_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'readable annotations' but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data mutation. The tool's read-only nature can be inferred but is not explicitly stated.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity, leaving important details unspecified.

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 four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return format, pagination behavior, or what 'readable annotations' means, making it inadequate for correct tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not elaborate on any of the four required parameters (projectPath, mapId, eventId, pageIndex). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning or constraints.

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 tool retrieves event page commands with readable annotations, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'event page commands'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_events' by focusing on a single event's page, though the term 'event page' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_events' or 'list_events'. The description lacks any indication of context or prerequisites for use.

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