get_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions that it 'Returns the complete activity record including all channel-specific fields,' which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not address error cases, permissions, or any request constraints, leaving room for added transparency.

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 two short sentences plus an args snippet. It is front-loaded with the purpose, immediately followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary wording.

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 has an output schema (not shown here), which likely describes the return structure, and the description specifies that it returns 'the complete activity record including all channel-specific fields.' For a simple single-ID getter, this sufficiently covers the main context, though it could mention not-found behavior or authorization requirements.

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?

The input schema has no description, so schema coverage is 0%, but the description's 'Args' section compensates by explaining the `name` parameter with a realistic example ('ACT00123') and a clear format rule ('Always starts with 'ACT' followed by digits'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('activity'), and the specific scope ('full details of a single activity by its ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_activities, which lists activities, and get_call/get_email, which target specific channel types.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use this when you already know the activity ID.' This implies that you should first use a listing tool to find the ID, but it does not explicitly name the alternative, such as list_activities. Clear context with no exclusions.

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