Get User Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing the windowed search behavior, coverage reporting guarantee, and the critical caveat that `assignee` reflects the current assignee, not the actual actor. This is essential behavioral context beyond the structured 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?

Three sentences: purpose, technical reliability, and caveat. Each sentence delivers distinct, high-value information with no fluff. The most important use-case and caveats are front-loaded.

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 complex reporting tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (aggregates, coverage, methodology caveats) and why it works reliably beyond Asana's search cap. Combined with the fully documented schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, each with clear meaning and defaults. The description adds high-level context but does not need to repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Summarize what a person did in Asana over a date range'. It lists concrete data categories (tasks completed, created, commented, open workload) and aggregation dimensions (month, project), clearly distinguishing this from raw task-listing tools like asana_search_tasks.

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 clearly implies use for aggregated activity reporting and gives a strong reason to prefer it over naive search ('Uses windowed search to work correctly beyond Asana's 100-result search cap'). It also mentions always reporting coverage to avoid misinterpreting partial results. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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