Workboard List Activities Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not present in the schema: a server-side default page size of 15 and the fact that results are scoped to the authenticated user's access. It stops short of describing auth prerequisites or result ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then defaults, then pagination and filtering. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and the description covers defaults, pagination, and filtering. The remaining gap is sibling routing — nothing tells the agent how this differs from the other activity-listing tools.

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% and the schema already documents each parameter, including the allowed enum values for state, effort, and priority. The description restates those filters in prose without adding format, precedence, or combination semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List action items') and scopes it to items accessible to the authenticated user, which is meaningful for a multi-tenant workboard system. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as workboard_get_activity_tool (single item) or workboard_get_workstream_activities_tool (workstream-scoped list), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives concrete usage mechanics (pagination via limit/offset, filtering by owner/state/priority/effort) but never says when to choose this tool over workboard_get_workstream_activities_tool. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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