list_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are sorted by date (newest first), which is useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradiction 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no waste.

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 existing output schema, the description covers the key aspects: target types, preferred parameter usage, and sorting order. It does not cover error scenarios or pagination details, but for a list tool with high schema coverage and annotations, it is adequately 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?

The input schema already describes all 8 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by grouping parameters into usage modes and recommending preferred targets, helping the agent select the correct combination.

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 'List activity messages' and specifies the target resources: issues, documents, channels, or raw Huly objects. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_activity_filters and list_activity_replies by focusing on messages, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 preferred parameter combinations ('project+issueIdentifier for issues, teamspace+document for documents, or channel for channels') and notes advanced usage with objectId+objectClass. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but offers clear context for when to use each mode.

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