list_timebase_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers safety. The description adds the behavioral caveat 'Limited TimeBase server versions support', alerting users to compatibility constraints. It also specifies that it lists 'active' entities, suggesting a filtering behavior beyond a simple blanket list. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 consists of one concise sentence plus a brief caveat. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource list, with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and limitation.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with a full output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and a key limitation. However, the caveat 'Limited TimeBase server versions support' is vague and does not specify which versions or how the tool behaves differently across them. Given the availability of output schema and rich parameter documentation, the missing version detail is a minor gap.

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%, so each parameter is already described with meaning (kind enum, limit bounds, instance_key requirement). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active cursors, loaders, connections, and locks'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_timebase_activity_detail by focusing on a broad list of active entities rather than details of a single activity. The additional caveat about limited server versions does not obscure purpose.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_timebase_activity_detail might be more appropriate for detailed views, nor does it explain any prerequisites or exclusions. The only extra hint ('Limited TimeBase server versions support') is a compatibility warning rather than usage direction.

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