Workboard Get Activity Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and an output schema exists, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own -- no note on what happens if the ID does not exist, required permissions, or any other trait. It essentially restates the schema.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. No padding or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Only a brief note on missing-ID behavior or discovery via the list tool would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single activity_id parameter is fully documented in the schema including its positive-integer constraint. The description's 'by its ID' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (WorkBoard action item) with clear scope -- a single item, not a collection. This implicitly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like workboard_list_activities_tool, though it never names them explicitly.

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 'by its ID' implies usage context (call it when you already have a known ID and need the full item), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no mention of the list tool for discovery. Usage is only implied.

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