event_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state the operation (resolve) and output (canonical path and guid). However, it does not reveal error handling, whether it mutates state, or what happens for invalid targets, though this is acceptable for a simple lookup.

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 precisely one sentence plus a parameter definition. It is immediately clear, front-loaded, and contains no fluff.

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 simple one-parameter signature and no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it explains the purpose and what the input should be. A slight omission is the return format, but 'canonical event:/ path and guid' implies the output sufficiently.

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?

The description adds important parameter semantics: 'A path (event:/...) or {guid}.' The schema only indicates a string, so this format detail is valuable. It covers the parameter fully, though it could be more specific about expected formats.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Resolve an event reference to its canonical event:/ path and guid.' This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like event_info and event_list by focusing on canonicalization of a reference.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not state when to use this versus other event_* lookup tools, offering no exclusions or comparisons.

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