post_activity

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 discloses a key behavior: project_id and task_id are auto-filled from the currently claimed task if omitted. This is useful contextual information. However, it does not mention what happens if no task is claimed, or describe success/failure responses, but for a logging tool the core behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 longer than most but every sentence and bullet earns its place. It starts with a clear summary, then uses a well-organized bullet list for event type triggers, and concludes with the auto-fill behavior. The structure is highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, when to call, what events to use, and default parameter behavior. No output schema exists, so return values are not required. The description fully equips the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter described, but the description adds significant semantic value by mapping each event_type to concrete scenarios (e.g., 'Post progress after completing each significant milestone'). It also explains the auto-fill behavior for project_id and task_id, which is not fully captured 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Post an activity event to track what the agent is doing.' It uses a specific verb ('post') and resource ('activity event'), and the extensive list of event types distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_activity' tool, which reads activity.

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 provides explicit, proactive usage instructions: 'You MUST call this proactively throughout your work — do not wait to be asked.' It then details specific triggers for each event type (progress, file_created, decision, etc.), giving the agent clear when-to-use guidance that goes beyond generic alternatives.

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