Idm Get Activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavior: rejected writes surface here as 'Command not found: ...'. That is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs to diagnose silently failing writes. It omits other traits such as auth requirements, read-only status, or whether the log is bounded/rotating.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded and the diagnostic behavior immediately after. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be explained, and with one optional parameter the description only needs to convey purpose and key behavior — which it does. The remaining gap is the absence of any safety/read-only statement, minor for a log read but not nothing given no annotations.

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?

Only one parameter, 'limit', and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('how many recent entries to return'). The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Read the gateway's recent activity log.' That is unambiguous and distinct from most siblings (device/stream/parameter lookups). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named idm_get_history, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 a concrete use context: this is the 'real receipt for a write,' implying it should be consulted after a write to confirm the command was accepted. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative (e.g. idm_get_history), so it stops short of a full routing directive.

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