Get my activity stream

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the feed's nature (social/notification) and the included item types, which helps set agent expectations. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but given the annotations and simplicity of the tool, the added context is sufficient.

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 a single sentence followed by a short routing hint. It is front-loaded with the content types and the distinguishing pointer to alternatives. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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 parameterless tool with robust annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It states what the tool returns (recent activity) and explicitly routes the agent away for action items. No essential information is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100% since there are no properties. According to the baseline rule for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and none are missing.

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: 'Your recent Canvas activity' and lists concrete content types (announcements, messages, submissions). It clearly positions the tool as the social/notification feed and distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings by naming the alternatives (planner, todo). This is enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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 explicitly states when to prefer other tools: 'for action items prefer planner or todo.' This gives clear guidance on usage context and alternatives, going beyond mere purpose to direct the agent toward the correct choice among many siblings.

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