corymbus_list_activities

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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation, the read-only nature is already declared. The description adds practical behavior by mentioning filters and sorting recommendation ('Trier par start DESC'), which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, or any other operational details beyond what the schema and annotation already cover.

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, with two sentences that front-load the purpose, then list filters and a sort tip. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while packing relevant info. The only minor issue is the density of parentheses with IDs, but it remains clear and efficient.

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 schema thoroughly covers all 9 parameters, and the description provides the core purpose and a useful sort hint. However, since there is no output schema, the response format is not described anywhere, and neither the description nor annotations clarify what the tool returns. For a list operation, this is a notable gap.

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 100%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds extra value by summarizing the key filter parameters and providing a specific sort example ('start' DESC) that is not in the schema, offering practical guidance for using order_field. This goes slightly beyond the baseline.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Liste/recherche les activités' (list/search activities), enumerates the activity types covered, and specifies the filterable entity types. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like corymbus_list_accounts or corymbus_list_contacts, which target different resources.

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 implies usage for activity-related listing/searching via its resource focus and filter list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of 'use this instead of' or conditions for other tools. Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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