Get Activity Report (Snipe-IT)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by naming the types of actions in the trail, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or any other side effects. Consistent with 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 sentences: the first defines purpose, the second lists filters. Concise and front-loaded with no extraneous text. Could benefit from slightly more structure but is efficient.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and only moderate schema coverage, the description is too brief. It does not explain return format, pagination (despite limit/offset parameters), or how filters interact. A more complete description would improve usability for a list-query 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 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions filtering by item, action type, and target, which loosely maps to parameters, but does not add meaning for undocumented parameters like itemId, offset, targetId. The baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly compensate.

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 defines the tool as retrieving the Snipe-IT audit trail, listing specific action types (checkouts, checkins, creates, updates, audits) and mentioning filtering options. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like snipeit_list_assets which list resources rather than activity logs.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snipeit_search_capabilities or snipeit_list_assets. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned. The usage context is implied but not clarified.

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