recent_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: chronological ordering ('oldest first'), privacy handling ('private fields hidden'), and conditional behavior ('on request, their bodies'). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, retention bounds, or the response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 dense sentence followed by a short usage directive, front-loading the tool's purpose and event enumeration. Every clause appears to earn its place by specifying content or format. The length is justified by the breadth of the tool's output, though it could be slightly more scannable.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full burden. It adequately describes what the tool returns and its ordering, but omits how results are returned (format, pagination, size limits), authentication needs, and how far back history is actually available (the since param defaults to 30m but no maximum is stated).

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 four parameters fully. The description adds context about what the event types look like (click format, field-change format), which helps interpret the kinds enum and pick grep patterns, but it does not directly clarify the grep, since, or bodies parameters beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('What the user did in their browser recently') and enumerates the specific event types returned. It is specific and distinguishable, but does not differentiate from the sibling get_screenshot tool, and its mention of screenshots as an event type could create some ambiguity with that sibling.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use it before asking the user what they did or what went wrong.' This tells the agent when to reach for the tool proactively. However, it offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to the get_screenshot alternative.

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