get_system_event_details

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes a read operation (getting event details) and mentions the return object fields. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but it implies no side effects. Minor improvement would be to state it does not modify data.

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 concise with four lines of essential info. Each sentence adds value: purpose, inputs, error resolution, return fields, source of event_id. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description still describes the return object (status, timestamps, result fields, additional_info). It also explains how to handle unresolved system identifiers. For a simple read tool, this is complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains system_identifier can be system_name or system_id, and event_id should come from get_system_event_history. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's raw types.

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 gets one event detail, with specific inputs and a note that event_id should come from get_system_event_history. This differentiates it from siblings like get_system_event_history, which lists events, and get_system_details, which gets system details.

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?

It explicitly provides guidance: use event_id from get_system_event_history, and if system name is not found, resolve with find_systems_by_name. This tells the agent when to use other tools, fulfilling the usage guidelines dimension well.

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