td_get_activity_log

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds significant behavioral detail: ring buffer size (200), eviction policy, newest-first ordering, and the specific fields returned. It also notes the pairing with an in-TD Table DAT for visual patching, which is beyond annotation scope.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then providing format and constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, constraints, behavioral details, and integration context (Table DAT). For a simple read tool with well-covered annotations and schema, this is fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'limit' and 'tool_filter'. The ring buffer context is useful but parameter-specific details are 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves recent tool-call activity from a ring buffer, specifying the output format and constraints (200 entries, newest-first). This purpose is unique among siblings (no other logging tool visible), so it strongly differentiates.

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 gives context (ring buffer, eviction, pairing with a Table DAT) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus other tools or when to avoid it. No alternative tool names are mentioned. While usage is implied, explicit guidance is missing.

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