get_activity_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that results are newest-first and that only log_activity entries are included. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation or provide details about rate limits or pagination.

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 concise and well-structured, with a summary sentence followed by a clear Args block. No unnecessary words, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, filtering options, and ordering, making it complete for its context.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description thoroughly explains each parameter in the Args section, specifying formats (e.g., 'ON-914' for card_ref), filter types (substring vs exact), and case sensitivity. This adds significant meaning beyond the null descriptions 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 it gets the structured activity log for a card, distinguishing it from related tools like get_workspace_activity (workspace-level) and list_comments (plain comments). It explicitly says it only returns entries from log_activity(), excluding plain comments.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve activity log for a card) and what is excluded (plain comments). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_workspace_activity, but the distinction is implied.

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