get_activity_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it supports both AB and XT types and that auth credentials are auto-loaded. This adds value beyond the schema. As a read operation, no destructive effects are expected, and the description is consistent with read-only behavior.

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 sentences: first defines purpose, second provides auth context. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the return value or response structure. For a simple retrieval tool this may be adequate, but it lacks completeness regarding what the agent can expect to receive. Given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, a score of 3 reflects this gap.

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 adds value by clarifying that the tool supports both activity types (AB and XT), which aligns with the schema enum but reinforces meaning. It also implies the activityId parameter by stating 'by ID'. The schema already describes each parameter adequately; the description provides marginal added clarity.

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 an Adobe Target activity by ID' and specifies it supports both AB and XT activity types. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_activities (list) or create_ab_activity (create).

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 mentions automatic loading of API key and tenant from environment variables, providing context for setup. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it) or compare to siblings like list_activities. The usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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