get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get full details' implying a read operation, but does not mention any specific behaviors such as permissions required, rate limits, side effects, or the fact that the tool's behavior varies greatly by type parameter. The schema hints at different behaviors for different types, but the description does not elaborate. This is insufficient transparency.

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 long. The first sentence states the core purpose concisely. The second sentence lists useful alternatives, which is valuable but slightly lengthens the description. Overall, it is efficient with minimal fluff, earning a 4.

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 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is not fully complete. It does not explain what 'full details' includes, how pagination works, or what the return format is. The focus is on usage guidelines, which is good, but the description omits important behavioral context that would help the agent understand what to expect from the response.

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 high (94%), so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'by ID' which is already in the schema. The list of alternative tools in the description indirectly clarifies that the type parameter for activity types is not the primary use, but this is marginal. The description adds no new parameter information.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'resource by ID', and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like workspace_activity, activity_archive, etc., by listing specific alternatives for activity-related tasks. This ensures the agent knows exactly what the tool does and how it contrasts with similar tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use alternative tools for activity logs (e.g., workspace_activity for recent logs, activity_archive for archived months). However, it does not cover when to use this tool over other non-activity tools like list or search, which are in the sibling list. The context is clear but lacks exclusions for other scenarios.

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