get_activity

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

Lacking annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It mentions 'recent' (vague time window) and content type ('actions and their results'), but fails to disclose sort order (chronological?), data retention limits, whether returned entries include system vs. user actions, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes operation and scope; second sentence describes return content. Appropriately front-loaded and sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Adequate for a simple 2-parameter read operation, but gaps remain due to missing output schema and annotations. Description mentions what content is returned (actions/results) but omits structural details, time range constraints, or result ordering that would complete the picture.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both agentId and limit parameters. The description adds context about the agentId being optional ('all agents'), but adds no additional semantics about the limit parameter or parameter interaction that isn't already in the schema.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'activity log entries' with clear scope ('for an agent or all agents'). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling get_agent_stats by focusing on log entries rather than statistical aggregations, though explicit contrast would strengthen this.

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?

Mentions the optional agentId parameter ('for an agent or all agents') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_agent_stats, run_agent, or other monitoring tools. No 'when not to use' or prerequisite guidance provided.

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