activity_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral nuance by noting that dates come from 'the CPM engine next to the dates stored in the file,' indicating it presents both computed and stored values. This goes beyond the annotations to explain what data is included. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases like not-found behavior or performance implications, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Everything about one activity') followed by a comma-separated list of attributes. It is efficient, with no wasted words, and the list is logically grouped (dates, floats, constraints, codes, assignments, relationships). It could be slightly more structured with line breaks, but it remains concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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 that there is no output schema, the description serves as the primary source for understanding the return value. It lists a comprehensive set of fields, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the meaning of specific terms like 'driving flag' or 'relationship float' beyond their names, and it omits any mention of error behavior or parameter prerequisites. Given the tool's complexity, this is a strong effort but still leaves some details to be inferred.

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, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'activity' parameter accepts an activity ID or an exact name, which is valuable. However, it provides no explanation for the 'path' or 'project' parameters. Since these are required (path) and optional (project) but not described anywhere, the description does not fully compensate for the schema gap. It leaves two of three parameters semantically undefined.

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: it returns comprehensive details for a single activity, identified by ID or exact name. It lists the specific data fields (type, status, dates, floats, constraints, assignments, relationships), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_activities (which likely returns summaries of all activities) and schedule_summary. The verb is implied ('Get everything about one activity'), but the resource and scope are 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 description implies that this tool is for retrieving detailed information about one activity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. For example, it does not mention that list_activities is for browsing or that critical_path or driving_path focus on specific analyses. The usage context is clear from the description but not explicitly compared with siblings.

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