Get Activity By ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds only that it returns a JSON object, which is minimal. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, error responses) are disclosed beyond the annotations.

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 concise with only a few sentences, front-loading the main purpose. The inclusion of API endpoint info is somewhat redundant for an agent but not harmful. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 complexity (6 params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, alternative usage, required parameters, and return type. It lacks details on the return JSON structure and pagination, but the schema fills most gaps.

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% with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify the purpose of page/per_page, which the schema already explains.

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 'Get a single activity by id' and differentiates from the Show Project API for timezone needs. It specifies the resource (activity) and the action (fetch full details), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use the Show Project API instead, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_activities' or 'get_schedule_by_id', leaving some context unaddressed.

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