recent_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the types of activity and ordering (newest first) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the 'author' is null (presumably returns all). The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes examples of activity types and ordering. It is concise with no filler, making it easy to parse. A minor deduction for not mentioning the limit parameter, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers the main aspects: what activity is shown, ordering, and filtering. However, it omits clarification on the scope of 'crew memory activity' (what is a crew?) and does not explicitly state that 'limit' caps results. The tool is simple, but the description leaves some gaps that an agent would need to resolve.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It only references 'per author' for the 'author' parameter, but says nothing about 'limit' (except the schema default of 30). The meaning of 'limit' as a maximum number of entries is not stated, and the description fails to fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states what the tool does: it returns a timeline of crew memory activity (statuses, saves, lifecycle changes) newest first, with optional per-author filtering. This is a specific verb+resource with concrete attributes, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recent' which may be similar. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, alternative tools, or specific scenarios that call for this tool. The omission of any comparison to 'list_recent' or other memory-related tools leaves an agent without routing guidance.

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