Activity summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint and the ActiveTime-based aggregation but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as date-window handling or response structure; this is acceptable but not additive given the annotations.

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 a single, scannable sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the endpoint for reference. It is concise, though it is a fragment rather than a complete instruction.

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?

Given the output schema and thorough parameter schema, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings or clarify when the summary view is appropriate, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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 86%, which is above the 80% threshold, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 identifies the resource as a summary of top apps and sites ranked by ActiveTime, which distinguishes it from detail-oriented siblings like get_activity_detail. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', but the meaning is still unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like get_activity_detail, get_productivity_summary, or get_idle_summary, nor does it state any exclusions or context-specific scenarios.

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