list-activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the quota cost (1 unit per call), which is a valuable behavioral trait, and the default-to-own-channel behavior. However, it lacks details about return format, pagination behavior, or rate limits beyond the quota cost, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, includes examples and cost. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, default behavior, and cost. It's a simple list tool with optional parameters that are all documented. No output schema exists, but the examples provide a sense of the return content. It's slightly thin on response structure, but the context signals (3 optional params, no nested objects) indicate low complexity.

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 100% and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what's in the schema; the channelId default behavior is already in the schema. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('recent channel activity') and gives examples of activity types. It also explains the channelId behavior, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list-channels or list-videos.

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 states when to omit channelId (defaults to authenticated user's channel) and when to specify a channel, providing clear context for use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct from sibling tools.

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