List Server Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real semantic context beyond that: events carry an actor and a success/failure outcome, and the feed functions as an audit trail — telling the agent what the records mean, not just that the call is safe.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, content enumeration in the first clause, and the 'when to reach for it' hook in the second. No padding or restatement of the title.

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 list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition supplies what the schema cannot: the meaning and shape of an event and its role as an audit trail. It could go slightly further by noting pagination-driven iteration, though the schema's page_size text already warns about it.

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%, including the important page-size cap of 30 and the pagination cursor, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own, making baseline 3 correct.

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?

Names the specific resource (a server's recent Forge activity) and enumerates its contents — provisioning steps, restarts, config changes, actor and outcome — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent get_server_event_output sibling, which likely returns per-event detail.

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 an explicit situational trigger: 'the first place to look when something changed unexpectedly,' framing it as an audit trail. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_server_event_output for a single event's output), so no exclusion is stated.

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