Vibe Board VE

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: results are ordered newest-first, there's a default limit of 50 and maximum of 200, and it's a query/read operation (implied by 'Query' and 'Results'). However, it doesn't mention pagination, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first explains the core functionality and key constraints, the second provides usage contexts. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and important information 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?

For a query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and how to use it. It covers the main behavioral aspects (ordering, limits) and usage scenarios. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the return format or structure of activity log entries.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the limit parameter's default and maximum values (which are also in the schema) and implies filtering capabilities, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool queries an activity_log with specific filtering capabilities, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like board_log_activity (which presumably writes to the log), leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.

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 clear usage contexts ('useful for auditing what happened on a task, reconstructing a session, or following an agent's actions'), giving practical guidance on when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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