get_activity_data

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

The description discloses that the tool ranks activities by duration and includes productivity classification, but no annotations are present. It lacks details on error handling for invalid date strings, data freshness, or limits on historical data. The existence of an output schema partially compensates.

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 is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters with defaults) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary information: date format, limit default, and what the results contain. No gaps remain.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains the date_str format with examples ('today', 'yesterday', 'YYYY-MM-DD'), the default value of limit, and what limit does. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 'Get' and the resource 'top activities/applications by time spent', with additional detail about ranking by duration and including productivity classification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_category_breakdown or get_hourly_productivity.

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 retrieving activity rankings for a given date, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., for daily top activities vs. category breakdown). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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