get_server_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'recent' without defining a time window, does not state whether events are paginated, ordered, or require any permissions, and gives no indication of volume or rate behavior.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free. It is appropriately short, though that brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral 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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a read tool with no annotations, the lack of information about the 'recent' time window and event scope leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether to call 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%, so both parameters (instance_name and limit) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning such as format expectations for instance_name or behavior when limit is omitted.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ('Get recent events') and scopes it to 'a specific server'. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_instance_details or get_resource_monitoring, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_instance_details or get_service_status, and no mention of what 'recent' means or when the tool is inappropriate. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'recent events'.

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