get_report_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool retrieves but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite having a 'page_size' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read operation with parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the activity timeline of a report') and follows with specific details. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly scannable and informative.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors) and output details. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must rely on the description alone, which leaves gaps in understanding the full tool behavior and results.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('report_id' and 'page_size') with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the format of 'report_id' or explaining pagination context for 'page_size'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 specific action ('Get the activity timeline') and resource ('of a report'), with explicit enumeration of what activities are included ('comments, state changes, bounty awards, and triage responses'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_report' (which likely returns report metadata) and 'get_report_with_conversation' (which might focus on conversations rather than the full activity timeline).

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 implies usage context by specifying the type of activities retrieved, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_report_with_conversation' or 'get_report'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool's purpose alone.

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