infomaniak_get_drive_file_activities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope constraint (single file/folder) but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, filtering, or depth handling offered by the query object. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the action ('Read') and the resource ('activity history for one kDrive file or folder'). Every word adds value.

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 complex query object and multiple sibling tools, yet the description is very brief. It does not mention the available filters, pagination, or depth options. While annotations and output schema cover some aspects, the description leaves notable gaps for a tool with this parameter complexity.

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% (only drive_id has a description). The description minimally explains that file_id refers to a file or folder, but the extensive query object parameters (from, depth, limit, order, terms, etc.) are entirely undocumented in the description, leaving users without guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 tool reads activity history for one specific kDrive file or folder. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_get_drive_activities (drive-wide) and infomaniak_get_drive_root_activities (root folder).

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 phrase 'for one kDrive file or folder' implies the tool is scoped to a single file/folder, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. No alternative tool names are referenced.

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