aion_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the token requirement and the 'Get' (read) nature, but does not mention rate limits, side effects, or pagination behavior. Minimal but some useful context is added.

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, front-loaded with purpose and examples, followed by the auth requirement. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple single-parameter list tool, the description adequately covers purpose, event types, and auth. The word 'recent' implies temporal ordering. It does not describe output format, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need for that.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter 'limit' with a description (default: 50). The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'Aion', and the scope 'audit/activity events' with concrete examples (joins, messages, logins). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonchat_activity by specifying 'from Aion' and the audit/activity focus.

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 implies usage when needing recent Aion activity events and notes the AION_SESSION_TOKEN requirement, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as aion_channel_history or aion_query. No clear when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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