get_timebase_activity_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent understands this is a safe read operation. The description adds the version limitation and single-object scope, which is useful context, but it does not disclose potential error behaviors or instrument pagination details. This aligns with the calibration example where annotations cover safety and the description adds modest context.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. Every word contributes to tool selection or invocation context.

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?

The tool has a full schema with all parameters documented, an output schema, and annotations. The description covers the core behavior and version caveat, which is sufficient for an agent to select and call it. It could explicitly mention usage relative to list_timebase_activity, but that is not essential given the tool name and context.

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%, with all 7 parameters fully described in the input schema. The description only references the kinds, which mirrors the enum, and adds no additional parameter syntax or usage details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get details' and explicitly lists the target resource types: cursor, loader, connection, or lock. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tool list_timebase_activity which lists activity objects.

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 implies usage for a single activity object rather than a list, giving clear context. It also notes the 'Limited TimeBase server versions support' caveat, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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