Server activity log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only implies a read operation via 'Get'. It does not disclose pagination defaults, sorting behavior, required permissions, return format, or what activity events include.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately concise, though it provides little structure beyond the title.

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?

For a 10-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient; pagination, filtering, panel/key overrides, and return shape are unexplained. The schema partially covers parameters but not behavioral context.

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 70%, with descriptions for sort, event, panel, baseUrl, include, clientKey, and applicationKey, but the description adds no meaning for any parameter and leaves page/server undocumented. It does not compensate for the remaining coverage gap.

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 ('Get') and resource ('server's activity log'), and the server scope distinguishes it from account_activity and general server_console_tail. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource scope is enough for basic selection.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to account_activity or server_console_tail. An agent must infer that this is for server-scoped activity rather than account-wide activity or console-tail use.

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