xenmark_recent_activity

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the sort order (newest first), the exact shape of each row, and the operational constraint 'Use web_url for links - never build Xenmark URLs'. It does not mention pagination behavior, but for a read-only feed that is a minor omission.

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, front-loaded with the resource and ordering before the row fields. The long field enumeration is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema. Minor cost: the middle sentence reads as a flat list rather than grouped by purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return shape, and it does so completely: actor, project, drawing, revision, comment, title, preview, mention labels, old/new status, read flag, timestamp, and deep link. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a row is missing.

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%, and both parameters (limit, unread_only) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the implicit framing of a notification feed with a default recency ordering; it does not clarify limit semantics or how unread_only interacts with the 'read' field it mentions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('the user's Xenmark notification inbox, newest first') and enumerates the event types it aggregates (comments, replies, mentions, status changes). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like xenmark_list_comments or xenmark_list_replies, which return a different scope.

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?

Usage is implied by 'notification inbox' — an agent can infer this is the cross-project activity feed rather than a per-drawing comment list. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., 'for full comment threads on one drawing, use xenmark_list_comments') is provided.

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