get_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses some filter behavior (kind, app, since_minutes, unread_only) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what data source it reads from, how pagination works, or what 'ya redactada' means operationally.

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 compact and uses a clear label-plus-parameter list structure. It wastes little space, though the opening phrase is slightly ambiguous and could be clearer.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema-level descriptions, this is incomplete. The output schema covers return shape, but missing device_id and pagination semantics, plus a lack of usage context among many siblings, leaves an agent under-informed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining kind values, app partial matching, since_minutes semantics, and unread_only. However, it omits limit, offset, and device_id, leaving 3 of 7 parameters without meaningful explanation.

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 names a resource ('Timeline unificado de actividad ya redactada') and lists filters, so it is more than a tautology. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and the phrase 'actividad ya redactada' is ambiguous, making the exact purpose unclear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use get_activity versus siblings such as search_activity, get_call_log, or get_events. It provides filter semantics but no context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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