clio_get_activity

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Full detail' suggests a read operation and return of comprehensive data, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what fields are included, whether authorization is required, or how errors are handled. This is minimal transparency.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the key concept 'full detail' and specifies the resource. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 has one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what 'full detail' means and what the response contains. It does not specify what fields or data are returned, nor does it clarify the need for an existing activity entry. This leaves significant gaps for a simple but still non-trivial retrieval tool.

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 schema has one required parameter 'id' with no description coverage. The tool description does not mention 'id' at all, leaving the agent to infer that the parameter identifies the activity. This is insufficient for a single-parameter tool with zero schema-level description; the description should explicitly state that 'id' is the activity identifier.

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 'Full detail for one time/expense entry' clearly indicates the tool fetches a single activity record and returns comprehensive information. It distinguishes itself from sibling clio_find_activities by emphasizing 'one' entry, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that clio_find_activities should be used for searching, nor does it state prerequisites like needing an existing activity ID. The phrasing 'one entry' implies a single-item retrieval, but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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