get_agent_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys a read-only retrieval operation and adds a useful detail about explicitly labeled duration sources. However, it does not disclose permissions, data freshness, or any limitations such as pagination or timezone handling beyond the schema. This is adequate but not extra transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single clarifying detail. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unrelated information. This is a model of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides a solid overview: what data is returned (activity/reservation history, summary statistics), for whom (single worker), and over what period (time window). The schema fully covers parameters, so the description only needs to fill in the outcome, which it does. It omits specifics about the summary statistics' composition, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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 100%, so each parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description only references 'time window' and 'single TaskRouter worker', which map directly to existing parameter descriptions without adding new semantic depth. Thus it matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 identifies the verb ('Get'), the specific resource ('activity history and reservation history for a single TaskRouter worker'), and the scope ('over a time window'). This distinguishes it from call-centric sibling tools like search_calls or get_call, which focus on call records rather than worker activity.

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 phrase 'for a single TaskRouter worker' implies when this tool is appropriate (per-worker queries) but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is only implied.

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