get_activity

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and openness. The description adds minimal behavioral context (returns status/detail) beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded with key information. Efficient and to the point.

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 low complexity (1 param, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains purpose and a typical use case. The output schema handles return value documentation, so no need for description to cover that.

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 single parameter (activity_id) has 0% schema description coverage. The description says 'by id' which adds minimal meaning, but for a simple integer ID, the schema name and tool name provide sufficient context. Does not fully compensate for missing schema description but adequate.

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 it gets status/detail of one activity by id, with an example of checking if a reboot finished. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_activities (list) and wait_for_activity (wait).

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 includes a use case ('e.g. to see if a reboot finished'), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, lacking full contrast with siblings.

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