Show Work Activity

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns a JSON object, which is consistent. It does not disclose non-obvious behavior like required permissions or the work activity's relationship to incidents. Adequate but minimal added value.

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 reasonably concise with 4 sentences, including required parameters and endpoint. The first sentence clearly states the core function. Could be streamlined by removing the redundant 'Incidents' reference.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool, the description covers the basics: it returns a JSON object for a given identifier. However, it lacks details about error scenarios, the exact structure of the return (no output schema), or preconditions. Adequate but leaves 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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats that company_id and id are required, and references the endpoint, but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The remaining parameters page and per_page are only in schema.

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 states it returns the specified Work Activity, but confusingly mentions 'Incidents' instead. The purpose is clear overall but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like list_work_activities.

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 says to use it to fetch full details of a specific item by identifier, but does not provide any guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., list_work_activities). Implied usage without exclusions.

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