dhp_note_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful system behavior — repeated digests trigger livelock detection and the handoff gets orphaned as stalled — but is silent on required permissions, idempotency, and what a call returns or changes.

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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words, and the core definition of the digest is front-loaded. It stays information-dense without padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the digest concept and the supervisor's reaction, but for a 3-required-param reporting tool with zero annotation coverage it omits the meaning of the handoff/worker identifiers and the intended call frequency.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains only `digest` (hash of tool name + args); `handoff_id` and `worker_id` are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving two of three required inputs 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?

States a clear verb+resource ("Report an activity digest") and helpfully defines the digest as a hash of tool name + args. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like dhp_heartbeat or dhp_checkpoint, which an agent could easily confuse with this liveness-reporting role.

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?

Usage is implied via the consequence ("supervisor orphans the handoff as stalled if the digest repeats"), which tells the agent why reporting matters but not explicitly when to call this versus dhp_heartbeat or dhp_checkpoint. No call cadence or precondition is stated, so the agent must infer the moment to use it.

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