list_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers by warning against invalid sort fields ('do NOT use created or edited') and explaining user name resolution. It also documents defaults and the max take value, adding behavioral nuance beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core action and usage tip, followed by an organized Args list. Every line adds information, including the sort-field warning and user resolution note, with no fluff.

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 11 parameters and no annotations, the description covers every parameter, usage guidance, and a critical pitfall. An output schema exists, so the absence of return-value documentation is acceptable; the description is sufficiently complete for a complex listing tool.

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 descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly, explaining each of the 11 parameters with value enums, examples, and defaults, such as type channel codes and queue lookup via list_queues.

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 opens with 'List activities (calls, emails, chats, etc.) with optional filters,' which clearly states the operation and resource scope. The enumeration of channel types in the 'type' parameter further distinguishes it from channel-specific siblings like list_calls or list_emails.

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?

It provides concrete usage context with 'Always specify type and/or a date range to keep results focused,' and references list_queues for finding queue names. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative list tools or state when-not-to-use them.

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