infomaniak_get_drive_activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cursor pagination and repeated filter support, which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations. However, it does not describe return format or any operational limits, so it remains within baseline value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds information. There is no redundancy or noise, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has an output schema and strong annotations, the description adequately conveys the main capability across key dimensions. It covers the essential filtering dimensions (users, files, actions, time) and pagination. It could mention that multiple filters can be combined, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 covers drive_id only, leaving query parameters undocumented. The description mentions cursor, actions, files, and users as filters, adding some meaning to those fields. However, it omits many other parameters like limit, from, until, order, and terms, so semantic coverage is only partially improved.

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 identifies the tool as reading kDrive activity history, with explicit scope across users, files, actions, and time ranges. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drive_file_activities and get_drive_root_activities, which target specific subsets.

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 choose this tool over alternatives like get_drive_file_activities or get_drive_root_activities. It only states capabilities, not selection criteria, so agents lack direction for tool differentiation.

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