get_event_detail

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 return value but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has any special behavior. The verb 'Return' implies a read, but it's not explicit.

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 with no filler words. It communicates the core function efficiently and is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 description is minimal and omits important context such as the meaning of 'assignment revision', potential error cases, prerequisites, or any differentiation from sibling tools. Given no annotations and low schema coverage, this is under-specified for an agent to call it correctly with confidence.

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 schema has one parameter (event_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention event_id at all, adding no semantic value beyond the schema's bare title. The agent must infer what event_id refers to and how it's used, which is a significant gap.

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 a specific action (Return) and a specific resource (one complete event and its current assignment revision). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_assignment_detail or get_run_detail, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other get_* tools or event-related tools. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternatives, so the agent must rely on inference from the name and description alone.

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