list_activity_messages

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds value by specifying the content type (comments and coach messages) and the discussion-thread context. It provides enough transparency for a simple read operation, though it does not detail pagination or ordering, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance and the arg list. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, read-only), and the description plus annotations and output schema fully cover its use. It specifies when to use it, the alternative for writing, and the content returned, making it contextually 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description repeats 'Activity ID' in the Args section, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'comments and coach messages associated with an activity', distinguishing it from sibling add_activity_message. It also specifies the use case of viewing a discussion thread, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use to view discussion thread on an activity' and contrasts with 'To post a new message, use add_activity_message', giving a clear when-to-use and an alternative. This is ideal guidance.

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