get_hsm_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that results are 'filtered from the operations-log tail', implying a limited recent window rather than full history, but it never defines 'recent' or says whether older activity is reachable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its scoping constraint come first and nothing is redundant.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is nearly sufficient: the agent knows the source (log tail), the content (HSM events), and the volume control (maxLines). A note on return format or the effective time window would close the last gap.

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% — maxLines, consoleName, and environment are all documented in-schema, including the default and env-var fallback. The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the specific resource (DFSMShsm activity) and enumerates the activity subtypes (recalls, migrations, backups), plus the source (operations-log tail). This clearly separates it from generic log/console siblings like get_console_messages or analyze_logrec, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 use case is implied by the subject matter — reach for this when you need HSM-specific events rather than raw console traffic — but the description never states when to prefer it over get_console_messages, analyze_logrec, or system_health_summary, nor any prerequisites.

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