Log activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It does so by stating that the call broadcasts to teammates, surfaces in recent activity, and is immediately visible so teammates do not rely on stale plans. It does not mention optional-field side effects or persistence details, but the core behavioral impact is disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds the only non-obvious usage detail—pivoted semantics and required detail content—without repeating schema information.

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?

For a simple broadcasting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough guidance to call it correctly for the required parameters. The main gap is the undocumented optional parameters 'files' and 'memberName,' but the central behavior and required-input expectations are clear.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for 'kind' and 'detail' by specifying the pivoted case and what detail should contain. However, 'files' and 'memberName' remain completely unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb—'Broadcast'—and a clear object, 'what you're currently doing.' It also explains the outcome: the activity will appear in get_context/get_handoff_brief calls. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling task-management and planning tools.

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 gives clear context for when to log activity and provides an explicit rule for the 'pivoted' kind: use it when changing approach mid-task without abandoning it outright. It also explains what detail should capture. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use log_activity versus those alternatives.

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