get_motion_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose how data is aggregated, whether both motion and audio are returned together, default time ranges when params are omitted, or any rate limits. It adds scope context but lacks deeper 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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes value, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition of 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?

While the output schema and parameter descriptions exist, the description does not clarify crucial usage context: all parameters are optional, yet the description implies a time range is needed. It also does not mention how 'scale' affects output or how 'cameras' should be specified, though the schema covers some of this. The tool is simple, but the description leaves ambiguity about default behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter individually described. The description adds a high-level summary ('across cameras and a time range') but no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('motion + audio activity data') with scope ('across cameras and a time range'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_timeline or get_stats, which are not specifically for motion/audio activity.

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 retrieving motion/audio activity data, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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