Event history

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's added value is the default ordering, the permission dependency for chat events (chat:read plus the server's events.chat), and the prompt-injection warning that chat content is untrusted data. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or response shape beyond what the cursor parameter implies.

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?

Front-loads the resource and default ordering, then the filters and the security caveat — a sensible order. The long event-type enumeration is useful but makes the first sentence dense; it still earns its place by telling the agent valid `types` values.

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?

With 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: default ordering, permission gating for chat, the plugin-type discovery path, and a data-vs-instructions warning. Only the response/pagination shape (beyond the cursor parameter) is left implicit.

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 coverage is already 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by establishing 'newest first' as the default order and by explaining that types may include plugin-defined `ext.<namespace>.<event>` values discovered via list_extensions. The time and player filters are only restated at a high level, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

States a specific resource (recorded events) with its default ordering ('newest first') and enumerates the concrete event types available, so an agent knows exactly what it is retrieving. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_audit_log, get_server_log, or wait_for_event, which keeps it from 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?

'Filter by type, player, and time' implies the query use case, and the chat caveat names the conditions needed for chat events. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_audit_log or get_server_log, nor on when to use wait_for_event instead of polling.

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