get_project_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the list of content types (tasks, decisions, risks, etc.), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as aggregation rules, sorting, or how 'current' is defined, so it adds only moderate value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It immediately states the verb and the specific content categories, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes meaning.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description is too brief to explain how the inputs map to the extraction, especially the meaning of 'current project' and how the vault parameter identifies the project. It also fails to describe the return structure or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (vault, maxChars, dailyLimit). The default values and types in the schema give some hints (e.g., maxChars likely limits output length), but this is implicit. The description fails to clarify what 'vault' refers to or how the limits affect results, so it only partially 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 the verb 'Extract' and specifies the resource as 'current project tasks, decisions, risks, changelog entries, and recent daily notes.' This provides a specific scope and distinguishes from many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly compare to 'get_project_context', a close sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

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