Afficher la timeline d'activité du projet

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output as an interactive timeline with grouping/filtering, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no mutations) or mention any required permissions. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed but not comprehensively.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the usage guidance follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by explaining the tool returns an interactive timeline (UI component) rather than raw data. It mentions grouping by day and filtering by category. However, it does not specify how the timeline is presented (e.g., within a viewer) or any prerequisites. Still, for a UI-centric tool with good sibling differentiation, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, region, projectId). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning 'latest events' and 'filterable by category'—the latter is not explicitly a parameter. Thus, description adds limited value over the schema.

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 displays an interactive timeline of recent project events, with specific examples (file uploads, BCF, todos) and grouping/filtering. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'tc_activities' by noting the UI vs plain data difference.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('when the user asks to SEE the recent project activity') and provides a direct alternative for plain data ('use tc_activities instead'). This gives the agent clear decision guidance.

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