get_activity_samples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully states that results are paginated, which indicates offset/limit-driven behavior, and 'Get' signals read-only usage. However, it does not disclose what happens when the optional 'metric' parameter is null, nor does it mention ordering, boundaries, or rate-limit behavior.

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 with no jargon or required words. 'Get paginated' is front-loaded, and the metric list is compact. Every word 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 the response shape is not a concern. Yet the description still omits important invocation context: there is no statement about what null metric means, how pagination limits/offsets work, or any model limits on limit. This is likely to be usable in many cases but leaves crucial optionality unstated.

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. It does add semantic value for the metric parameter by listing possible sample types, but it does not explain the default null behavior, how limit/offset interact for pagination, or whether metric values are case/index-sensitive. The parameter list is therefore partially clarified but not fully covered.

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 is specific and immediate: it uses the verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('paginated ... samples') and lists the exact metric types supported. This makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_activity_summary and get_activity_track.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need paginated raw activity samples—but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_activity_summary or get_activity_track. The agent must infer routing from the tool name and sibling names rather than from direct guidance.

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