platform_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states the feed is recent and platform-wide, and mentions the types of activities included. However, it does not explain how the 'limit' parameter affects results, whether results are sorted, pagination behavior, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids fluff and communicates the essential resource and scope effectively. However, it omits any parameter context, which slightly detracts from overall usefulness but not from conciseness itself.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool returns. Yet it lacks details about the feed item structure, how 'limit' works, or any other behavioral nuances. It is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('limit', type number) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'limit' at all, leaving its purpose and usage completely unexplained. Since the parameter is a bare number, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Recent platform-wide activity feed' with examples ('jobs posted, completed, etc.'). This conveys a specific resource (activity feed) and scope (platform-wide, recent), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_bids or job_events that focus on specific entities.

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 viewing recent platform-wide activities, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like platform_stats or job_events. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it's minimally adequate.

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