list_activities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower. Description adds 'Recent activities... status' but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or the open-world nature beyond what annotations hint. Minimal added value.

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 sentence, which is concise but omits important information about parameters and usage nuances. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 2 undocumented parameters, no output schema shown, and only minimal context, the description is incomplete. It mentions status but lacks parameter semantics, result details, and guidance on how 'recent' is defined.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not mention or explain the 'limit' and 'query' parameters at all, failing to compensate. No meaning added beyond raw schema properties.

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?

Clearly states 'list recent activities (async jobs) and their status', identifying the resource and action. Distinguishes from siblings like get_activity (single) and wait_for_activity (polling) by focusing on listing all recent items with status.

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?

Says 'Use to track prior actions', giving a usage context. But does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like get_activity for details or list_alerts for alerts. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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