sprrint_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses allowed values for tab and range; it does not describe the response shape, side effects, permissions, pagination, or how the other parameters affect behavior. This is a significant gap for a feed tool.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core resource and packs the parameter constraints into a compact form. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It only covers two of six parameters and gives no information about return values or call behavior, leaving too much to inference for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully documents two parameters (tab and range) but leaves q, type, actor, and project completely unexplained. This incomplete compensation leaves an agent guessing about the remaining parameters.

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 states the resource (activity feed) and immediately gives two key parameter domains (tab: you|all, range: 0/7/30/all), but it lacks a verb and does not distinguish this from sibling reporting tools like sprrint_overview or sprrint_search. It is more specific than a tautology but still vague.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as sprint_overview, sprint_search, or sprint_home. The parameter hints describe value choices, not the situations that warrant this tool.

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