get_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default 24h time window and the composition of the event stream (summaries, decisions, errors, knowledge). It does not discuss pagination or truncation behavior when the event volume is large.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and default window before the routing hint. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the 'ACP Step 4' reference and 'RECENT ACTIVITY' capitalization are stylistic filler rather than informational.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back (event stream, summaries, decisions, errors, knowledge), which the agent needs to interpret results. The remaining gap is that the boundary against get_project_knowledge is unstated, leaving some ambiguity in this dense sibling cluster.

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 all five parameters (project_id, tags, limit, since, event_types) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the 24h default and implies limit semantics but adds no filtering syntax or interaction rules beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (get recent activity for a project) and enumerates the payload it yields: event stream with summaries, decisions, errors, plus accumulated project knowledge. It distinguishes itself from recall by framing itself around recent activity rather than knowledge lookup.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use for ACP Step 4 — what happened recently' and 'For searching specific knowledge, use recall.' The alternative and its selecting condition are named. However, it does not address overlap with the sibling get_project_knowledge, which the phrase 'accumulated project knowledge' also implicates, and 'ACP Step 4' is internal jargon an agent may not resolve.

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