infomaniak_get_drive_activity_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which align with the description's 'Read' operation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—no mention of pagination, report expiration, permission requirements, or any constraints. It merely restates the obvious from the name and annotations without disclosing additional traits.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, making it easy to parse. While it could include more detail, that is not the role of this dimension—it is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 a valid output schema and annotations, which reduce the burden on the description. However, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent: it doesn't explain that the report must be previously generated, how it differs from live activity endpoints, or that query parameters enable pagination/filtering. It is minimally viable but lacks contextual depth.

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 only 33%, with only 'drive_id' given a description. The tool description adds no meaning for 'report_id' or the nested 'query' object. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to infer parameter roles from names alone. This is a significant gap.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('one generated kDrive activity report'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_drive_activity_reports' (reads one vs lists all) and 'get_drive_activities' (generated report vs live activities). The scope is unambiguous for an agent.

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 'list_drive_activity_reports' or 'get_drive_activities'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a report_id from a prior list call) or any exclusions. There is no explicit 'use this when...' context.

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