get_recent_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that by warning 'Returns untrusted observed data' and by describing the grouped frame blocks, which informs the agent about output shape and data reliability.

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 short sentences with the core action and output shape front-loaded, followed by a concise data-reliability warning. Every word earns its place; no duplication or filler.

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 description conveys purpose, output format, and a data-reliability caveat, which is decent for a simple tool with annotations. However, it omits parameter semantics (limit, minutes), which are central to invoking the tool correctly, leaving an agent to guess how to control the query.

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 0% and the description never mentions the 'limit' or 'minutes' parameters. The agent is given no explanation of what these knobs control, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 states a specific action ('Summarize recent screen activity') and output structure ('blocks of consecutive frames (app, window title, time range, text)'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_screen_history, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage for obtaining a summary of recent screen activity, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_screen_history, get_context_around, or get_day_material, and no exclusions. The context is clear but the routing is only implicit.

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