get_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It is likely read-only (get operation), but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits. The response format is also not described, though an output schema exists.

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 a single sentence of 14 words with no wasted words. However, it is overly minimal and lacks structure—no bullet points or front-loading of key information. It earns its place but barely adds value.

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 (which covers return values), the description does not explain the meaning of 'activity_id' or how to obtain it. Given the number of sibling tools, the description should help differentiate, but it leaves ambiguity about what constitutes an 'activity' and when to use this tool.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (host and activity_id). It does not explain their roles, valid values, or where to obtain activity_id. The description only describes the output, not the input.

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 it returns 'Full activity config' and lists specific components (included entities, sequences, button overrides, UI pages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_button_mapping and get_ui_page by indicating a broader scope. However, 'activity' is not defined and could be ambiguous without domain context.

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 alternatives such as list_activities or get_remote_info. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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