get_runtime_activity

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states that this is an activity log. It does not disclose response format, pagination, authentication, or any side effects. For a read operation, the minimal phrasing gives the agent no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 concise phrase, front-loaded with the key concept 'Activity log'. It has no redundant words, but it is also under-specified; however, conciseness itself is high.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool's behavior is under-specified. The description is too thin to fully prepare an agent for invoking it correctly, especially with sibling tools that might overlap in functionality.

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?

The schema describes workspace_id but not the required 'id' parameter. The description's 'one runtime' implies that 'id' identifies the runtime, but it does not explain the format or how workspace_id interacts. With 50% schema coverage, the description provides only marginal compensation.

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 'Activity log for one runtime' clarifies the scope (single runtime) and the data type (activity log), but lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish it from the similar get_runtime_usage tool. It is more than a tautology but not fully explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_runtime_usage or list_runtimes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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