get_user_activity_v1_users__user_id__activity_get

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

Annotations are missing, so the description must compensate. It states the tool is public, returns paginated results ordered by most recent, and lists activity types. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.

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 efficient sentences: first provides endpoint and primary purpose, second adds key details about content and ordering. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially explains return values (list of activities, recent first) but lacks details on pagination metadata, error scenarios, or authentication. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 75%, with descriptions for limit, offset, and type. The description adds value by providing example activity types (created, starred, synced, etc.), which helps the agent understand the type filter parameter context.

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 retrieves a paginated activity feed for a user, listing example activity types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_feed_v1_me_feed_get or get_user_activity_v1_users__clerk_id__social_activity_get.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. With many activity-related siblings, this omission hinders correct tool selection.

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