activity_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral edge case — that on a non-activity network it returns an 'is not an activity' result rather than failing — which is genuinely useful, though it does not cover failure modes or empty-state behavior beyond that.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary payload (activity progress) followed by the caveat. Every clause carries information; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 an output schema present and read-only semantics carried by annotations, the description need not detail return shapes. For a zero-parameter, read-only query tool it is effectively complete, missing only differentiation from the check_activity sibling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline of 4 applies; the description's listing of returned fields is orthogonal to parameters and does not mislead.

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?

Names a specific resource (the open .pka activity) and enumerates what the tool reports: percentage complete, score, assessment items/points, instruction pages, time elapsed or left. This is a concrete verb+resource statement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling check_activity, which appears to overlap.

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 clause 'For a plain network it only says it is not an activity' implies when the tool is pointless, giving implicit usage guidance. But it never states when to prefer this over check_activity or status, nor any prerequisites, so routing is left to inference.

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