aktivita

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-style summarizing behavior and explains the time window and default of 7 days, but it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or what happens if the required board context is missing. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by concrete usage examples and parameter clarification. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value details do not need to be explained. The main gaps are the unexplained required 'board' parameter, the lack of explicit alternatives or non-use cases, and the absence of safety context since no annotations are provided. Overall adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'dni' as the number of days back with a default of 7, adding real meaning. However, the required 'board' parameter is not explained at all; the phrase 'na projekte' only weakly suggests that board identifies the project.

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 that the tool summarizes project activity over the last N days, with a specific verb and temporal scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the focus on recent activity distinguishes it from list/status/summary siblings.

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 concrete trigger phrases such as 'čo sa dialo minulý týždeň', 'aký bol pokrok', and 'čo sa zmenilo', giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage guidance is still explicit and actionable.

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