accelo_get_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks any information about authentication requirements, return format, rate limits, or error behavior. For a retrieval tool, some safety profile would be expected.

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 efficient: a one-sentence purpose followed by bullet-like parameter documentation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the parameter section could be more structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the parameters but omits return value details, pagination, or any other behavioral context that an agent might need to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does document both parameters: 'id: Activity ID' and 'fields: Additional fields to return, e.g. "body,owner(),against()"', providing syntax and examples. However, it doesn't explain the format of 'id' beyond 'Activity ID' or the full range of possible fields.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get a single activity by ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like accelo_list_activities or accelo_count_activities. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly name those siblings for differentiation.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since it names no alternatives or conditions, the agent must infer that this is for retrieving a specific activity, which is not ideal given the many sibling tools.

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