Get Work Activity Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns filter values. It does not mention pagination behavior or response ordering, which could be inferred from parameters but not stated.

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 short but includes a confusing, irrelevant sentence about fetching full incident details, which wastes words and could mislead. The rest is reasonably concise, but the presence of this error lowers the score.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It states 'Returns a JSON array of available filter values' which is helpful but vague. It doesn't explain pagination or the structure of each filter value. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not 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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description only repeats that 'project_id' is required, which is already in the schema. It adds no new meaning for the parameters.

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 it returns work activities for filtering injuries, which is the main purpose. However, it includes a contradictory sentence about fetching full incident details, which reduces clarity slightly. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling filter options tools, but the purpose is still evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, usage scenarios, or exclusions. Given the large number of sibling filter tools, this is a significant gap.

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