tie_recent_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are merged and sorted newest-first, timestamps are UTC, alerts are enriched, and truncation is reported. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but given the retrieval nature, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then detailed explanation, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's complex behavior (merging two sources, enrichment, truncation). It could be slightly more complete by hinting at the output structure, but it is adequate 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides all parameter meaning. Each parameter is explained with default values, behavior details (e.g., max_items truncation, verbose slimming), and context (profile_id defaults to 1, directory_ids restrict scope). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 provides a unified recent-activity timeline of IoE alerts and IoA attacks. It answers specific user questions and distinguishes from sibling tools like tie_alerts and tie_attacks by being a merged view.

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 explains when to use this tool (for recent activity, merging both IoE and IoA). It implies that for separate feeds, tie_alerts or tie_attacks would be more appropriate, but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative conditions.

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