clio_list_activities

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

The description reveals no behavioral traits such as read-only vs. destructive side effects, idempotency, or authentication requirements. The routing detail ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') is an implementation concern, not a behavioral disclosure. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails entirely.

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 short (two sentences plus an arg line), but it front-loads internal routing details that are irrelevant to the agent's invocation decision. It could be more concise by focusing on purpose and parameters.

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?

The description omits essential context about what activities are and how they relate to other Clio entities. Although an output schema exists, the description fails to differentiate this tool from numerous sibling list tools, making it incomplete for an agent to select appropriately.

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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds only that it is a JSON string—already implied by the schema type. No guidance on expected keys, format, or examples is provided. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not.

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 states it is a 'list_activities' operation for the Clio connector, but it does not define what an 'activity' is (e.g., time entries, events, or other records). The name and sibling tools (e.g., clio_list_bills, clio_list_contacts) imply listing some resource, but the description lacks specificity to distinguish from other list tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_list_tasks, clio_list_time_entries, or other list operations. The description does not mention prerequisites, scope, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no decision-making support.

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