get_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('View') and mentions chronological order, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or whether results are paginated. It does not contradict annotations (none exist).

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the parameter. It is front-loaded and every word is informative.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does and how to use the parameter. However, it could briefly mention what data is returned (e.g., URLs or summaries) to fully set expectations.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds valuable meaning for the only parameter 'date' by specifying allowed values ('today', 'yesterday', 'YYYY-MM-DD'), which goes beyond the schema's type and default. However, it could clarify time zone or format strictness.

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's purpose: 'View a chronological timeline of browsing activity for a specific day.' It specifies the resource (browsing activity), verb (view), and scope (chronological timeline, specific day), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_history or get_stats.

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 basic context (for a specific day and accepted date formats) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_timeline or search_history. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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