sonchat_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 required admin key and the type of events returned, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention behaviors like pagination, error responses, or whether the operation has side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler or repetition. Every phrase adds value.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what events it includes, and the auth requirement. The absence of return format details is a minor gap, but the tool's simplicity makes the description largely sufficient.

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 schema covers the single 'limit' parameter fully, including default and max values. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Get SonChat activity log' with specific event types 'join/leave/message events.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonchat_health and sonchat_invites, which serve different purposes.

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 notes the required SONCHAT_ADMIN_KEY, giving a clear precondition for use. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions compared to sibling tools like sonchat_health or conversation_list.

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