get_user_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get activity feed' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, what types of activities are included, or the format/structure of the returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words ('Get activity feed of a user'). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary information. Every word serves a purpose in communicating the tool's function.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple potentially overlapping sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'activity feed' contains, how it differs from other user data tools, what authentication might be required, or what format the data returns. The context demands more completeness than this minimal description provides.

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 'username' parameter clearly documented as 'Username of the player'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 activity feed of a user' states the action ('Get') and resource ('activity feed of a user'), making the purpose clear. However, it's somewhat vague about what constitutes an 'activity feed' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_timeline' or 'get_puzzle_activity' that might provide similar user activity 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_timeline', 'get_puzzle_activity', and 'get_user_profile' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this specific activity feed tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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