list_recent_activity

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context beyond that: it says the feed is 'summarized' and returned in 'chronological order.' It also lists what types of activities are included. These details help set expectations without conflicting with the annotation.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary and then provides a list of examples. While the example list is lengthy (7 lines), each example is concise and directly shows parameter usage. The structure is efficient and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing 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?

Given the tool has 8 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the scope of activities, the time window, and provides extensive examples covering various filters. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand how to invoke it appropriately.

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 each parameter is individually described. The description adds value by illustrating parameter combinations through examples (e.g., hours=168, project_id=343136). This demonstrates how parameters interact and clarifies practical usage beyond the raw 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's function: 'Get a summarized feed of recent activities and updates.' It also enumerates the types of content included (task updates, comments, new documents). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_task_history or list_comments, the emphasis on 'feed' and 'activities' makes its broad scope evident.

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 numerous usage examples via code snippets (e.g., filtering by hours, project_id, user_id, activity_type). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The only implicit hint is in the schema for event_type, which suggests using get_tasks for closed tasks, but that's not in the description itself.

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