get_activities

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The description focuses on semantics (what is an activity) rather than operational behavior.

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys core concepts (activity definition, states, types). It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While it could be slightly more concise (e.g., avoiding repetition of type descriptions also in schema), it remains readable and informative.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain the return format, but it does not. It fails to mention pagination, field structure, or how to interpret results. For a tool with 10 parameters (all optional), the lack of behavioral context and output explanation makes it incomplete.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool's description adds context by explaining the meaning of activity_types and states (e.g., 'package_upload_to_masv - package upload from user...'), but this largely paraphrases the schema. No new parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the tool retrieves activity records and explains what activities are (events related to MASV resources). It lists activity types and states, providing a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_activities_information or get_activity_events, which may cause confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for specific sub-tasks, leaving the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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