Nitrado event log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It accurately conveys that the tool is a read-only audit trail, but it does not mention output format, pagination behavior, or any access restrictions. The description could go further in explaining what the returned data looks like or any limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with only three sentences. It wastes no words and effectively covers purpose, usage, and differentiation.

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 optional-parameter audit list tool, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from the main sibling. The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the parameter schema covers defaults and filters. It does not mention service_id fallback or ordering, but these are documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by mapping event examples to categories, but it does not explain parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The use cases like 'whether an action actually went through' implicitly relate to severity/contains but are not explicitly tied to parameters.

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 identifies the tool as an account audit trail for the service, listing specific event types (restarts, config uploads, settings changes, game installs) and concrete use cases like 'who restarted the server'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from pz_tail_log by contrasting service actions with game actions.

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 description gives direct call-to-action phrases ('Call this for...') and names the alternative tool (pz_tail_log) for game-specific events, making it clear when to use this tool versus siblings. This is explicit and actionable.

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