get_recent_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it declares the tool is 'Read-only', states the ordering ('newest first'), and discloses a meaningful limitation ('TimeTree keeps only the last few activities per event'). It stops short of noting auth requirements, rate limits, or what the returned shape looks like.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with purpose, then change types, then the retention caveat, closing with 'Read-only.' No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize returns; it does name the actors and change categories but not the response structure or pagination. Combined with the read-only and retention notes, it is sufficient for a correct call but not fully exhaustive.

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 limit, since, and calendar_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (e.g., how 'since' interacts with the retention window), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('recently changed events and memos in a calendar') and enumerates the change types covered (created, title/date/label/... updated, deleted), so an agent knows it is an activity/audit feed. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the similar-looking sibling get_updated_events, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The closest siblings (get_updated_events, get_events) are never mentioned, so an agent must guess which retrieval tool to pick.

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