Get a user's activity log

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

The read-only and non-destructive annotations are already present, and the description adds the permission requirement and audit-trail nature. It does not describe pagination or response format, but those are partly covered by parameter defaults and the detail parameter.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the content, and the permission requirement. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 simple read-only lookup, the description gives the essential context: what the tool returns, for whom, and what permission is needed. It does not specify output shape, but no output schema exists and the parameters already cover pagination and detail level.

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 100%: user, page, detail, search, and per_page all have descriptions plus defaults and constraints. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (one user's activity) and the content (logins, server actions, API key use), and the title repeats the specific scope. This distinguishes it from broader activity or listing tools among the siblings.

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 states the required permission (users.activity) and makes the single-user scope explicit. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling calagopus_get_activity, but the scope is clear enough for correct selection.

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