msg_activity_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not detail what the feed contains, whether it is scoped to the user or global, how results are ordered, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal transparency beyond the name.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is under-specified. It does not fully earn its place because the vague term 'activity feed' leaves key details unexplained, making it effective only as a terse overview.

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?

Given the tool's simple structure (1 optional param) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description should clarify the return format and scope of the feed. It does neither, leaving the tool's behavior underspecified even for a simple tool.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter ('minutes' with 'Look back window in minutes'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it neither improves nor degrades the schema 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('recent messaging activity feed'), identifying a distinct resource among sibling tools. However, 'activity feed' is somewhat vague and does not specify what activities are included, so it doesn't fully differentiate from tools like msg_read_inbox.

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 multiple messaging-related siblings (msg_read_inbox, msg_list_threads, msg_search), the absence of explicit usage context or exclusions is a significant gap.

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