get_puzzle_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get your puzzle activity' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list, summary, JSON structure). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more specific. There is no unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'puzzle activity' entails (e.g., attempts, scores, timestamps), how results are structured, or any error conditions. For a tool with potential complexity in output, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 the 'max' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 'Get your puzzle activity' states the action (get) and resource (puzzle activity) but is vague about scope and format. It doesn't specify whether this returns recent attempts, statistics, or a history log, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_puzzle_dashboard' or 'get_puzzle_storm_dashboard' which might provide overlapping puzzle-related data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_puzzle_dashboard' and 'get_puzzle_storm_dashboard', the description offers no context on whether this tool is for personal activity tracking, performance metrics, or something else, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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