file_activity_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is for 'recording' events, implying a write operation, and mentions it's used by PostToolUse hooks. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, or any rate limits. The description provides basic context but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 and appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, provides usage context, then documents parameters and returns in clear sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections enhances readability.

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 tool has an output schema (returns result dictionary), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It provides the purpose, usage context, and comprehensive parameter documentation. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral transparency, but overall it's quite complete for its complexity level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation. It explains all 6 parameters with clear semantics: what each parameter represents, which are optional, and example values for 'action' and 'file_type'. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 the tool's purpose: 'Record a file activity event' with the specific verb 'record' and resource 'file activity event'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'file_activity_recent' by focusing on adding new records rather than retrieving recent ones. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 provides clear context: 'Used by PostToolUse hooks to track what files have been accessed.' This gives a specific use case and indicates it's for tracking purposes. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for appropriate usage.

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