infomaniak_get_drive_root_activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the root-level scoping behavior, which is useful context, but it does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or return format. This aligns with the calibration example where scope context is credited but lacks behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy or filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 moderately complex query object and a large sibling set, and while the output schema and annotations exist, the description does not explain available filters or how this tool differs from get_drive_activities and get_drive_file_activities. It is adequate but leaves room for agent confusion.

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 50% (drive_id is described, query is not), and the tool description mentions no parameters at all. The description does not compensate for the undocumented query object or explain how 'root-level' relates to parameters like depth or files.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource ('activity history') with a clear scope ('root-level kDrive files and folders'). This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_get_drive_activities and infomaniak_get_drive_file_activities.

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 'root-level' qualifier implies it should be used for activities at the drive root, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool is named, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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