list_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (listing) but does not explicitly state that it is safe or non-destructive. It also fails to mention rate limits, pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides, or the format of the returned data. Score 2 because it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implicit listing action.

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 consists of two short sentences: one for the core purpose and one for credential setup. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a defined role, earning a top 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description lacks an overview of the tool's behavior (e.g., it returns a list of activities matching optional filters) and does not describe the output format. For a list tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context. Score 2 because it is minimal and misses key contextual elements.

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%, and the description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions. The mention of automatic credential loading is not parameter-specific. Baseline score 3 is appropriate since the description adds no additional parameter semantics.

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 'List activities from Adobe Target,' specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'activities.' It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_activity_by_id or create_ab_activity, but the purpose is evident. Score 4 because it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 some context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_activity_by_id for a single activity, create_ab_activity for creation), nor does it state prerequisites or conditions. Score 2 due to minimal usage guidance.

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