taskops_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what is returned (standing, commits with numstat, merged_into, notes), how depth changes output, and that diffs are not included. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none but not stated), auth requirements, or rate limits, and it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior.

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?

Three sentences pack a lot of value: the first gives a clear overview, the second explains filters and depth, the third sets a critical limitation. There is zero fluff and every phrase earns its place, making the description appropriately sized for a complex read tool.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must communicate return value essence, which it does by enumerating card standing, commits, merge info, and reports. The schema covers parameter details thoroughly, so the description need not repeat them. Minor gaps remain (e.g., error behavior or how to interpret seq) but the overall package is solid.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful layer: 'since=<seq> returns only what moved' and 'depth=full adds each spec and thread' reinforce the semantics. The milestone/tasks filter explanation also helps, going slightly beyond the raw schema.

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 it provides 'the whole story of a chapter in ONE read' including cards, commits, merge locations, and reports. While it lacks a direct verb like 'list' or 'get', the intent is unambiguous and the content distinguishes it from sibling tools like taskops_board or taskops_card.

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?

It explicitly covers when to use it (for a comprehensive chapter view), how to limit scope (milestone, tasks), and how to do incremental reads (since=<seq>). The 'No diffs' note tells users to go to git for diffs, acting as a clear exclusion. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the guidance is practical.

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