get_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful details: return shape ('Event dict with 'calendar' and 'provider' fields'), error behavior ('ValueError: If event not found'), and the default calendar selection behavior. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but this is a read-only get operation, making these less critical.

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 tightly structured with a leading summary, Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every sentence conveys necessary information with no filler, and the most important purpose statement is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter get operation with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: required uid, optional calendar_name with default behavior, return format, and error condition. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies uid as the event identifier and, more valuably, explains calendar_name as an optional full name with provider prefix and its default of searching all iCloud calendars. This adds meaning beyond raw schema properties, though the uid description is somewhat tautological.

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 opens with 'Get a single calendar event by its UID,' specifying a precise verb, resource, and identifier. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_events (plural listing) and create_event/update_event/delete_event (mutations).

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 usage context by stating it retrieves a single event by UID, and the calendar_name parameter defaults to searching all iCloud calendars. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use list_events to search) or state when not to use this tool, leaving routing partially to inference.

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