alloy_get_object_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read operation ('Get') and describes the kind of data returned, which is useful. However, it does not disclose absent-OID behavior, pagination implications, or any access requirements; it is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a compact list of illustrative examples. There is no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 read-only history-log retrieval tool with a simple required parameter and fully documented optional parameters, the description plus schema is nearly complete. It is not fully complete because there is no output schema and no mention of edge cases or return shape, but the core invocation path is well covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains oid, par_limit, par_fields, par_offset, and sort parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond echoing that the object is identified by OID, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get the activity/history log entries recorded against a single Alloy Navigator object by its OID.' It also gives concrete examples (status changes, assignment changes, system-generated notes) and is clearly distinct from siblings like alloy_get_object, which returns the object itself, not its history.

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 clear context: use this when you need activity/history entries for a particular object, and you must identify that object by OID. It does not explicitly say 'use X instead' or list exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to make the choice versus sibling tools obvious.

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