get_event_capacity_tier

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 states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether the event must be published, whether the capacity tier is a single value or a list, or any error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb 'get'.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool has an output schema and only one parameter, the description is somewhat complete for a simple retrieval. However, with no annotations and no parameter semantics, an agent lacks context about what 'capacity configuration' includes, whether tier count is a number or an array, and any prerequisites. The output schema may help, but the description alone is thin.

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 explain the event_id parameter beyond its name and type. The schema only shows event_id is a required string, which is insufficient for an agent to know what format or scope of event ID is expected. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 'Get capacity configuration and tier count for an event' clearly identifies the resource (event capacity configuration) and the specific data returned (tier count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_event_inventory_tier and update_event_capacity_tier, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 a read-only retrieval use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_event_inventory_tier or list_event_inventory_tiers. An agent can infer it is for fetching capacity tier configuration, but the description doesn't state exclusions or conditions.

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