get_user_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool retrieves a user's posts and comments, and describes the filtering and pagination behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, the verb 'See' and context imply it, and no side effects are mentioned.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a minimal Args block. Every line adds value (parameter explanations, defaults, filter values), and there is no redundant repetition of the schema.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description provides the essential context: purpose, required IDs, pagination, and filtering. It doesn't discuss result ordering or edge cases, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: user_id and course_id with lookup guidance, limit and offset for pagination, and filter with specific allowed values. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'See what a specific user has been posting and commenting in a course.' This is a specific verb (see) and resource (specific user activity), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_user (profile info) and list_users (listing users).

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 on when to use the tool: it requires user_id and course_id, and explicitly says 'Use list_users first to find the user_id' and 'Use list_courses to find the course_id.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the preconditions are clear.

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