Get Activity Messages

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

With no annotations available, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's purpose and does not mention return format, ordering, permissions, pagination, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal but leaves significant gaps.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function.

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 is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), but the description omits any detail about what the response looks like (e.g., list of messages, count, or message object structure). Given the simplicity and lack of annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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 both apiKey and activityId already explained in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about parameter usage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Ambil catatan/komentar (messages) pada satu aktivitas' clearly states the tool fetches notes/comments for a specific activity, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_activity_details and add_activity_message, though it does not explicitly name alternatives for differentiation.

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 such as add_activity_message or get_activity_details. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned beyond the basic purpose.

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