Get Server Event Output

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds diagnostic framing ('finding out why a Forge-side operation failed') but says nothing about truncation, pagination, or how much output is returned that isn't already in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the prerequisite and the motivating use case. No filler, though the first sentence is a noun phrase rather than a directive verb.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description supplies purpose, prerequisite, and use case. It is nearly complete; only return-shape/pagination expectations remain unaddressed.

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% and tail_lines already documents the default, cap, and truncation behavior in the schema itself. The description only echoes the event-id provenance, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (the output of a Forge server event) and enumerates what an event represents (provisioning step, service restart, config change). It is clearly separable from log/output siblings like get_command_output or get_scheduled_job_output by resource, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('get the event id from list_server_events') and a clear use case, debugging Forge-side failures. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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