get_server_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the admin permission requirement, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it discloses no other behavioral details such as pagination behavior, event scope, or response size.

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 extremely concise—two sentences. However, conciseness tips into under-specification because it omits essential parameter context for a 4-parameter tool. It is well-structured but lacks necessary detail.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description does not explain what 'server event history' contains or how pagination works. With 4 parameters and zero description coverage, the tool is inadequately documented for an agent to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, and the description makes no mention of any parameters. The input schema's page, size, sort, and unpaged fields are self-descriptive by name, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, especially since it doesn't explain how these affect event history retrieval.

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 phrase 'Get server event history' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from many sibling tools like get_server_info or get_server_tasks. It does not explicitly differentiate from list_auth_activity, but the resource is distinct enough. The admin requirement is additional context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or complementary tools. The only contextual note is 'Requires ADMIN', which is a permission prerequisite but not a usage guideline.

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