list_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the operation is non-destructive (listing) and describes the return format. However, it omits details like pagination, rate limits, or whether the bot's assignment is fixed, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 with three sentences: purpose, return format, and alternative reference. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 zero parameters and an output schema describing return fields, the description covers the essential aspects. It references 'get_activity' for completeness, but could mention if metadata includes timestamps or status.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it correctly reflects the lack of parameters.

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: listing activities where the bot is assigned, and specifies it returns metadata only. It distinguishes itself from 'get_activity' which provides full detail, making the purpose precise and actionable.

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 explicitly recommends using 'get_activity' for full details of a single activity, giving clear context for when to use this tool versus an alternative. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or address other sibling tools like 'list_mindmaps'.

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