api_nfd_get_nfd_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] activity/changes,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence: 'Get activity/changes for NFDs.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the efficient structure.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'activity/changes' means, the return format, or behavioral traits like pagination or safety. While the schema covers parameters well, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate more to provide a complete picture, which it fails to do.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., 'name' as 'Array of NFD names to get activity for'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get activity/changes for NFDs' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('activity/changes for NFDs'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about what 'activity/changes' entails (e.g., modifications, transactions, events) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling NFD tools like api_nfd_get_nfd or api_nfd_get_nfd_analytics, which also retrieve NFD-related data. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., monitoring NFD updates), or compare it to sibling tools like api_nfd_browse_nfds or api_nfd_search_nfds, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. This absence of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information limits its helpfulness.

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