List alias activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: results are ordered most-recent-first, capped at 20 per page, and each entry carries an action type, from/to addresses, a Unix timestamp, and a reverse-alias address. Auth requirements and failure modes are still unstated.

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?

Two dense sentences front-loaded with the resource and scope, then pagination mechanics and the reason for it. No filler or restated title text.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned entry structure, the sort order, and the page size, and explains the pagination contract. That is everything an agent needs to call and consume this tool correctly.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes further by explaining page_id is zero-based and that the per-page cap is why paging is required instead of expecting a full dump. alias_id gains no extra semantics beyond the schema's own wording.

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 specific verb (List) plus the exact resource (forward/reply/block activity history) scoped to a single alias. This clearly separates it from alias_list, alias_get, and alias_update in the sibling set without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear operational context: use page_id for pagination and page through rather than expecting full history in one call. It does not name an alternative tool or state an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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