bitrix_list_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that a list is produced and the filter scope; it does not disclose how dealId and contactId combine, whether at least one filter is required, pagination/limit behavior, or the structure of returned activities.

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 one short phrase with no filler and puts the core resource first. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices operational detail that other dimensions penalize.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is insufficient for reliable invocation. It leaves ambiguous the relation to bitrix_list_tasks, the required parameter combination, the meaning of the optional limit, and the returned data. A more complete definition should state whether dealId or contactId must be provided and what the response contains.

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 schema already documents dealId and contactId as IDs (67% coverage), and the description adds the meaning that these parameters are the deal/contact by which activities are filtered. It does not add semantics for the undocumented limit parameter, though its default/min/max constraints are present in the schema.

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 phrase 'Список дел (активностей) по сделке или контакту' clearly identifies the resource (activities) and the scope (deal or contact). It is more than a tautology, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not clearly distinguish the tool from the closely named sibling bitrix_list_tasks.

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 when to use the tool: when activities associated with a deal or contact are needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternative tools, such as bitrix_list_tasks or bitrix_create_activity, and does not state whether one of dealId or contactId is required.

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