get_workspace_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It explains aggregation of log_activity entries from all cards, sorting newest-first, and notes that it scans recent cards (though 'recent' is not precisely defined). This is sufficient transparency, though a bit more clarity on the time window would improve it.

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 well-structured with a clear main sentence, examples, parameter details, and a usage note. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains focused and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers filtering, scope, and alternative tools. Some details about pagination or time limits are missing, but overall it provides adequate context for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a detailed 'Args:' section explaining each parameter's filtering behavior (e.g., substring vs exact match, default limit). This adds significant value beyond the property names.

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 starts with 'Get the activity log across ALL cards in the workspace,' specifying the verb and resource clearly. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_activity_log, which is a per-card view, by emphasizing the workspace-level scope.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'for large boards use per-card get_activity_log() for targeted queries.' It also provides example questions that illustrate common use cases, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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