qui_list_automation_activity

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

The GET method aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, and the description adds how arguments are structured (path, query, body). However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination, sorting, or error conditions, but does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the endpoint. No wasted words, though it could be expanded for clarity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks functional details about what activity is listed, how to specify the instanceID, or what filters are supported. The endpoint path and sibling tools help but the description itself is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema only has a generic 'arguments' object with no properties, so the description's explanation of passing path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body provides essential structure. Yet it does not enumerate specific parameter names like instanceID, leaving parameter semantics 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 only says to call the endpoint, not what the tool does functionally (e.g., 'list automation activity'). It provides the HTTP path but lacks a clear verb/resource statement, making it vague about the operation's purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like qui_list_automations or qui_get_automation_activity_run. The description only covers how to invoke the endpoint, not when to choose it.

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