Get Member Activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses significant behavioral traits: the feed is 'normalized', includes specific event types, and rejects ambiguous/non-matching memberName with a clear error. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the fact that it scans across pages (maxActions), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise: two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and resolution logic in the second. No redundant or filler text.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and a clear description of the tool's scope and behavior, the description is sufficiently complete for a getter tool. It could explicitly mention time-filtering parameters (since/before/days) but those are well-documented in the schema, so this is a minor gap.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds a marginal clarification about memberId vs. memberName resolution, but the schema already conveys this. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 what the tool does: provides a normalized chronological activity feed for one board member, listing specific event types (card movements, list structural changes, creation, archival). This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_board_actions or get_card_movements, which are broader or focus on different aspects.

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?

The description implies usage context: it is for member-specific activity, and the resolution note ('Resolve by memberId when known; memberName is looked up') gives parameter-selection guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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