board_get_activity

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering (newest-first) and capping (default 50, max 200). It implies a read operation via 'Query', but could explicitly state it is read-only. Overall adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: what it does, filters, ordering, limit, use cases.

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?

The description covers filters, ordering, and limit. However, without an output schema, it lacks return structure details. For a query tool with 5 optional parameters, it is mostly complete but could mention return fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description groups the filters but adds little beyond schema descriptions, except for the limit default and max. The schema already specifies enum values for action.

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 uses a specific verb 'Query' and resource 'activity_log', and lists filter criteria and output characteristics. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'board_log_activity' and 'board_get_handoff'.

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 explicit use cases: auditing, reconstructing sessions, following actions. It mentions ordering and capping but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives. However, the use cases are clear.

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