dealdesk.list_card_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden but does supply real traits: it is a read operation, results are 'persisted' and returned 'Newest first', and 'Empty history is valid' pre-empts a false error interpretation. It omits pagination/limit behavior for a list endpoint, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the covered-event list before the ordering, edge-case, and disambiguation notes. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical enumeration is slightly long.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return content, and it does by enumerating the event types and stating ordering and the empty-case behavior. The missing pagination/limit detail and undocumented cardId keep it from being fully complete.

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 only 50%: projectId is well documented in the schema while cardId has no description. The description implies cardId context ('desk-card change history') but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for partial coverage without compensating for the undocumented cardId.

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 (Read) and resource (persisted desk-card change history) and enumerates the change categories covered (stage/owner/account/contact, notes, quote/order/share milestones). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the status-update timeline, so an agent can separate it from list_status_updates without inspecting the schema.

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?

Provides a clear routing rule by naming the contrasting sibling ('Distinct from status-update timeline (comments/tasks/emails)'), which tells the agent which tool to pick for which kind of activity. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing card), but the alternative is clearly signaled.

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