list_attivita_opportunita

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists activities, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like pagination (the 'limit' parameter suggests it), error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence in Italian: 'Elenca le attività associate a un'opportunità.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error cases, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit'), and how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 description coverage is 50% (only 'opportunita_id' has a description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies the tool uses 'opportunita_id' to filter activities, but doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter's role or provide examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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: 'Elenca le attività associate a un'opportunità' (List the activities associated with an opportunity). It specifies the verb 'elenca' (list) and the resource 'attività' (activities) with the context 'associate a un'opportunità' (associated with an opportunity). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_opportunita' or 'list_opportunita', which focus on opportunities themselves rather than their associated activities.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'list_opportunita' (which lists opportunities) or 'get_opportunita' (which retrieves a single opportunity). Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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