get_activity_codes

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Fails loudly', which indicates an error behavior, but does not explain what failure entails (e.g., error code, side effects). The statement about not being in v1 adds context but lacks clarity on behavior.

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 very short but packed with ambiguous statements ('Not in LCS /v1', 'Fails loudly'). It fails to be concise in conveying useful information, as every sentence adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 has one parameter and an output schema, the description should clearly state its function and when to use it. Instead, it leaves the agent guessing about the tool's validity and purpose, making it incomplete for reliable selection.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameter 'matter_id'. It only echoes the parameter name from get_codes without specifying format, constraints, or purpose.

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 does not state what the tool does. Instead, it says 'Not in LCS /v1' and mentions that v1 has 'get_codes'. This is confusing and fails to clarify the tool's purpose; it appears to suggest the tool may be non-functional or deprecated.

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 indirectly suggests using get_codes as an alternative by noting '/v1 has only the combined get_codes(matter_id)', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The phrase 'Fails loudly' implies the tool should not be used, but that is not a clear guideline.

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