get_recent_activity

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it watches directories, returns file events (created, modified, deleted, moved), and provides timestamps. It is transparent about the read-only nature, though it could mention if there is any time limit on 'recent'.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It includes a clear Args section and Returns note, with no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is complete. It explains the input, output format, and behavior sufficiently for an agent to use 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?

The description adds meaning to the only parameter (limit) by explaining its purpose ('Number of recent events to return') and providing default (20) and maximum (100). Since schema coverage is 0%, this is essential and well done.

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 recent file system activity from watched directories, with examples of file changes (created, modified, deleted, moved). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on notes (read_notes, save_note, semantic_search) or stats (index_stats).

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 a use case: 'Useful for understanding what you've been working on recently.' It implies when to use (to see recent activity), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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