get_activity_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the report's content, scope, and period limitations. It doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects,' but 'generate a report' and 'Returns...' strongly imply a safe read operation. A one-line side-effect statement would make it fully transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear opening summary, a returns bullet list, an alternative-tool pointer, and an Args section. It is not bloated, though the final 'Returns: Activity report for the specified period' line is redundant after the detailed returns list.

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 two optional-looking parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers return categories, parameter formats, mutual exclusion, and the key sibling alternative. The main missing context is the explicit requirement to pass one of the two period parameters and a clearer statement that the tool performs no mutations.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the exact formats for month (YYYY-MM) and week (YYYY-Wxx), and states that they cannot be used together. However, both parameters are nullable with defaults and no required markers, and the description never explicitly says at least one of week or month must be supplied.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a metrics-centric activity report for a time period' and enumerates the exact metrics returned (heatmap, daily note coverage, project progress, actionable sections). It also distinguishes itself from get_context_week by clarifying that task-level detail belongs to the sibling tool.

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 context is explicit: the tool supports weekly and monthly periods, notes that context week does not support monthly, and directly instructs the agent to use get_context_week for task-level detail. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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