Get Activity Stream Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so 'Read-only' is redundant, but 'very cheap' adds a cost/latency signal not present in structured data and reinforces the pre-check workflow. The description also previews what comes back (unread counts grouped by activity type), which annotations cannot convey. No output schema exists, so the exact response shape remains only partially described.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns first, then cost/safety, then the routing advice. Every sentence carries distinct information and the most decision-relevant content 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is missing: the return content categories and the workflow position. The one remaining gap is whether counts are aggregated globally or broken out per course, but that is minor for a cheap pre-check tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. Scope ('across your courses') is stated, which is the only meaningful semantic for a no-arg call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get counts of unread activity) plus the exact breakdown types (announcements, discussions, messages, submissions) and scope ('across your courses'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_activity_stream, which it names as the heavier alternative.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the call sequence: invoke this before get_activity_stream to decide whether the full stream is worth pulling. That gives the agent both a when-to-use condition and a named alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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