get_recent_repository_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the purpose and the default window (which is already in the schema). It does not mention pagination, sorting, whether closed issues are included, or other behavioral nuances.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with the default window appended parenthetically. No filler or redundant detail.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it omits usage guidance and potential edge cases (e.g., closed vs. open issues, pagination, sorting), making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 compensate. The parenthetical '(default: last 14 days)' adds semantic meaning to the days parameter, but owner and repo are left to inference from their names.

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 ('List') and resource ('recently updated issues/PRs') with a default time window, making its core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_issues or get_issue, but the action and scope are distinct enough.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'recently updated' implies a recency-based use case, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing to sibling tools.

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