get_report_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds one behavioral note: that tracker tokens and attachment URLs are always excluded - this is useful context that could affect an agent's expectations. However, it doesn't discuss pagination, ordering, or any rate limits.

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, concise and focused. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion is stated immediately after. No wasted words.

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 the tool complexity is moderate (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks details on the structure of the timeline, whether transitions are included by default, and any filtering options. Since there's no output schema, the agent has to infer the return format from the term 'chronologie', which is vague.

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 explains the purpose of the primary parameter, report_id, by tying it to the report timeline. The second parameter, include_available_transitions, is not mentioned, but its meaning is partially inferable from the name. Still, the description adds value by clarifying what the tool returns.

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 it returns the timeline of a hunter's report (verb+resource), and mentions an important exclusion (tracker tokens and attachment URLs). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_my_report or get_report, but the term 'chronologie' distinguishes it as a history/timeline tool.

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 usage for retrieving a report's activity timeline, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_my_report. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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