hec_get_event

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 disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the basic operation (get details by ID) without mentioning output structure, possible errors, rate limits, or whether the event is deleted or modified. This is insufficient for a read operation with no safety annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It includes the key elements (action, resource, identifier) and is appropriately 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?

The tool has low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations). In this minimal context, the description is mostly sufficient for the core purpose, but it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 reflects that it provides the basic function but leaves the agent with unanswered questions about output and usage.

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 100% because the only parameter (eventId) is described in the schema as 'The event ID to retrieve.' The description does not add details beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is adequate. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('full details for a specific security event'), and identifier ('by ID'). It is distinct from sibling tools like hec_query_events (querying) and hec_quarantine_events (quarantine action), so purpose is clear and differentiated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use hec_get_event versus hec_query_events to retrieve event details, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the event ID from a prior search).

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