Zdarzenia serwera

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it conveys that the tool returns recent events, and that providing an event identifier returns the full output of that event. No contradictions with 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 compact sentences: the first states purpose, the second explains how to get more detail. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every sentence contributes actionable guidance.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not specify limits on how many events are returned, but nothing an agent needs to make a correct first call is missing.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that 'event' is an identifier and that passing it yields full output, but it does not meaningfully add semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Pokazuje ostatnie zdarzenia serwera' (shows recent server events), and frames it as answering 'co sie teraz dzieje z serwerem' (what is happening with the server right now). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like forge_get_server_log or forge_server_action because it targets a distinct event-stream concept.

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 concrete usage context: it is for checking current server activity, and tells the agent to pass the 'event' argument to get the full output of a specific event. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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