get_event

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral caveats about secrets and attacker-controlled text in raw/stacktrace sections, and the default exclusion of Laravel vendor frames.

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 brief, well-structured, and contains no redundant information. It communicates the core behavior and key warnings in two compact sentences.

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 lack of parameter descriptions and output schema, the description is not fully complete. It explains high-level capabilities and warnings but omits pagination details, parameter semantics, and return behavior.

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 description does not compensate. Most parameters (limit, cursor, max_chars, include_source, application_only) are unexplained, and only some section enum values are mentioned.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource (event) and the selectable sections. It distinguishes the general event retrieval from more focused tools like get_event_stacktrace, though not by name.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_event_stacktrace or get_latest_event_stacktrace. It provides some usage hints (raw/stacktrace are opt-ins, vendor frames excluded) but lacks direct alternative guidance.

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