get_cloudforce_one_event

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what the returned details contain, whether any special account permissions are needed, or any other operational behavior. The verb 'Get' implies read-only behavior, but no meaningful behavioral context beyond that is provided.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It is efficient, but it is also somewhat under-specified because 'details' is vague and no additional useful structure or context is provided.

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?

This is a single-resource GET with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what fields or information the returned event details include, nor does it reference sibling tools like list_cloudforce_one_events for obtaining event IDs. An agent cannot fully anticipate the response shape or operational context from this description alone.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The schema already documents event_id and account_id, but both descriptions are generic and do not explain formats, sources, or relationships. The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Cloudforce One threat event details'), making it apparent this tool retrieves details for a single Cloudforce One threat event. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_cloudforce_one_events or get_cloudforce_one_events_aggregate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of using list_cloudforce_one_events first to obtain an event_id, nor any distinction from get_cloudforce_one_request. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and required parameters, which is effectively no guidance.

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