Recent activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes useful ordering semantics ('newest first'), but leaves 'recent' undefined — no retention window, no default time span — which is the key behavioral unknown for an activity feed.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource scoping and the sort order both front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which is a separate dimension.

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?

All four parameters are optional and fully documented, all parameters optional, and no output schema exists, so the description only needs to convey what comes back and in what order — which it does. The remaining gap is the undefined lookback window for 'recent', which an agent auditing activity would reasonably want.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions for page, limit, actionType and trackableType, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'created, edited or published' loosely gestures at actionType values but never connects to the filters, so it adds little beyond the schema (and 'publish' doesn't match the documented create/update/destroy examples).

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 names the resource (knowledge base activity log) and its contents precisely — who created, edited or published what — which is enough to distinguish it from list_articles and search_knowledge_base. It leans on the name's 'list' verb rather than restating it, but the parenthetical makes the payload unambiguous.

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 audit-style framing ('who created, edited or published what') implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives such as search_knowledge_base, and no exclusion conditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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