sf_activity_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what exactly counts (e.g., does it count only activities owned by the user?). Minimal disclosure.

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, clear sentence with 14 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, zero annotation coverage, and three parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not specify what the output format is, whether time range is inclusive, or any contextual constraints. Leaves many unknowns for an agent.

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 0%. The description adds meaning for the groupBy parameter by listing its enum values, but the dateFrom and dateTo parameters are not described. It partially compensates for the missing schema documentation but is incomplete.

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 the verb 'Summarize' and the resource 'task and event activity counts', with grouping options enumerated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_lead_source_breakdown or sf_campaign_influence by being a summary aggregation.

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 implies usage for aggregated counts by the specified groupings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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