get_recent_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns a summarized feed in chronological order, includes default time ranges (24 hours), and mentions a max_results limit of 200. However, it doesn't explicitly address rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, behavioral details, and practical examples. While slightly lengthy due to multiple examples, every sentence adds value by demonstrating usage patterns. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently uses examples to clarify parameters.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, filtering capabilities) and the presence of both comprehensive schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral aspects, and provides illustrative examples that bridge the gap between schema definitions and practical application.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value through examples that illustrate parameter combinations and practical usage, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get a summarized feed') and resource ('recent activities and updates'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_tasks or get_comments by focusing on a chronological feed of diverse activity types. It explicitly lists what's included: changes, task updates, comments, new documents, and activities.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, including examples that show filtering capabilities and a direct comparison to get_tasks for closed tasks. It covers various use cases (time ranges, project/user filtering, activity types) and mentions sibling tools like get_tasks for specific scenarios.

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