activity_types_list

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that returns both default and custom types, is cached for 5 minutes, and has an is_custom_flag. This provides adequate transparency for a simple read tool.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (core description, workflow tips, common use cases). Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return. It mentions is_custom_flag and general purpose, but lacks a full list of output fields. Still sufficient for a simple 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining what is retrieved (activity types) and how to distinguish custom from default, meeting the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 'Get all activity types', clearly specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools (create, update, delete) by being a read operation, and it elaborates on what activity types are.

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?

Includes workflow tips and common use cases, such as populating UI selectors and checking is_custom_flag. It mentions caching behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar list tools (e.g., activities_list) or state when not to use it.

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