session_get_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool returns a chronological timeline of mixed event types and names those types. It does not mention retention limits or response format details, but for a read-only history retrieval tool this is reasonable.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first sentence defines the tool's scope and output, and the second states the intended use case. Both sentences earn their place, and the key information is 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 simple optional-parameter retrieval tool with a rich sibling set, the description is mostly complete: it names the returned content, ordering, and use case. It could add a bit more about the return entry structure, but the absence of an output schema is not critical when the semantics are clear from the name and supporting schema.

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 100%, so the parameters need no elaboration in the description. The description adds contextual meaning about what the timeline contains but does not need to explain limit, since, or types because the schema already covers them adequately.

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 states a specific, useful purpose: a unified, ordered timeline of session activity including specific event categories. It clearly distinguishes itself from focused siblings like console_get_logs or network_get_requests by emphasizing breadth and chronological ordering.

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?

It explicitly advises using this tool to reconstruct what happened when a step behaved unexpectedly, which gives clear contextual guidance. It does not mention when to prefer the more specialized sibling tools, but the primary use case 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.