Activity feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is established. The description adds context that the feed comprises friends' actions, your own actions, and actions on your content, which is useful. It does not disclose response format or pagination behavior, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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 beginning with 'Recent activity', followed by a concise enumeration of scopes. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics of what the activity feed contains. It does not elaborate on the response structure or pagination details, but the schema's page parameter is self-explanatory and the overall context is sufficient for a tool of this simplicity.

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 description adds significant meaning to the 'scope' parameter, which lacks a schema description, by detailing what each enum value represents. The 'page' and 'username' parameters are already described in the schema, so the description's focus on scope fills a real gap and enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool as returning recent activity, with explicit breakdown of the three scopes ('friends', 'you', 'inbound'). It aligns with the title and gives a concrete sense of what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_notifications or get_journal, but the scope semantics provide enough clarity.

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 implies usage by explaining what each scope returns, but it does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no explicit guidance on selecting between this and similar feed/notification tools, so usage context is only implied.

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