List Server Events

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description goes beyond by detailing what events are covered (provisioning steps, restarts, config changes, who triggered them, success/failure), which adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. No redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description could provide more context on the return structure or pagination. It explains the essence well but lacks details on what the response contains, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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% with each parameter well-described in the schema itself (e.g., 'Server id from list_servers.'). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool lists recent Forge activity for a server, including specific event types and success status. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_servers by positioning itself as an audit trail, and the concrete examples ('provisioning steps, service restarts, configuration changes') give specific verb+resource understanding.

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 provides clear when-to-use context, explicitly calling it 'the first place to look when something changed unexpectedly.' However, it does not discuss when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, so it misses some usage guidance.

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