Get agent activity events

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Side effects: none beyond database reads' and 'Failure modes: returns an empty event list when no activity matches,' adding valuable behavioral context about safety and error cases.

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 uses clear section headers (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes) and is very concise. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, side effects, and failure modes. It does not mention sorting or pagination, but for a read tool with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description lists the inputs but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what is in the schema. It does not explain formats, allowed values, or relationships between parameters.

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 states 'Return normalized activity events for dashboards and orchestrators' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by listing the event kinds it covers (runs, reservations, handoffs, changesets), making it clear what this tool does compared to more specific tools like get_active_reservations or get_changeset_detail.

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 explicitly says 'When to use: call to inspect recent agent runs, reservations, handoffs, changesets, or status transitions,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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