list_cloud_diagram_activity_groups

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

Annotations already mark it read-only non-destructive. Description adds return structure (grouped by snapshot, ordered by timestamp, details about individual activity records), pagination, and filtering. Provides good additional context without contradicting 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?

Three sentences: first gives main usage and return structure, second details ordering and grouping, third provides exclusions. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters (all described) and no output schema, the description explains the return structure, ordering, and grouping. It covers pagination and filtering. Missing some specifics about activity record fields, but overall sufficient for agent to use correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds functional context: 'Page with offset/limit and filter with tags,' grouping the parameters into usage patterns. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it lists change history of a cloud diagram layer grouped by snapshot. It specifies the resource ('activity groups') and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding cost analysis and incidents.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants the change history...' and provides clear exclusions with alternative tools: 'Do NOT use this for cost analysis (use run_query) or incidents (use get_cloud_incidents).'

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