List activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the 'Read-only' line merely restates that, which earns no extra credit. The only behavior added beyond the schema is the vague 'newest context included' phrase and a listing of return fields that a declared output schema presumably already covers. Ordering semantics ('newest context') remain ambiguous, so the added behavioral value is modest.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences and the Args/Returns blocks are cleanly separated. The 'Read-only.' sentence is redundant against the annotations and the Returns block partly duplicates the output schema, but overall the text is compact and earns most of its space.

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 three-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present, including the required album_id and the meaning of each filter. The only gap is the unclear 'newest context' ordering claim and the absence of any pagination note, which are minor given the declared output schema.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are no enums, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so: album_id is the album whose activity is read, asset_id narrows to one asset within that album, and activity_type is given the enum values 'comment' or 'like' with explicit 'omit for both' default behavior. This adds meaning that the bare schema does not provide.

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 names a specific resource (comments and likes on a shared album) plus a specific read action, and scopes it to 'what the people an album is shared with have said about it or about one of its photos'. That is enough to separate it from the sibling write tools create_activity and delete_activity without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly states the use case ('Use this to read what the people an album is shared with have said') and marks the operation as read-only, which tells the agent when this tool applies rather than create_activity. It stops short of naming the alternative tools or stating exclusions, so it is clear context but not a full when/when-not rule set.

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