events.get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether this is read-only (though implied), what happens if the ID is not found, rate limits, or the structure of the response (no output schema exists).

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 single sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core action. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, the extreme brevity constitutes underspecification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the essential retrieval mechanism but leaves significant gaps: the accountId parameter is unexplained, and without annotations or an output schema, the lack of behavioral context (error handling, return structure) makes it minimally viable rather than 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only partially covers the 'id' parameter by mentioning 'by id', but provides no semantic information about the 'accountId' parameter (purpose, optionality implications, or format).

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 specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Ryft event'), and scope ('by id'), making the core function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'events.list' or explain what constitutes a 'Ryft event' in this domain.

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 phrase 'by id' implies usage when a specific event identifier is known, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this single-item retrieval versus 'events.list' for querying multiple events, nor are prerequisites mentioned.

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