aci_team_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'See' and 'work log' strongly imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, and it discloses the data source ('the user's ACI commons'). It could be more explicit about side-effect-freedom, but the read-only intent is clear.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by the usage trigger. Every phrase adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, where the data comes from, and when to call it. It does not describe the exact return shape, but 'log' and the catch-up purpose give enough context for correct invocation.

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 only parameter 'project' is fully described in the input schema as 'filter to one project (optional),' so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'See what every AI (and the user) has done on a shared project — the cross-agent work log.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like aci_remember or aci_find_skills, which deal with memory and skills rather than team activity.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this when you start collaborating to catch up on what other agents already did, so you don't duplicate their work.' This is a clear trigger context, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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