get_recent_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first') and that it returns previews of segments, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only status, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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. It states the purpose and a relevant parameter tip without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

Given 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It explains the core behavior but omits pagination details, default behaviors, and what 'segment' means. An agent might need to call the tool to learn these, but for a simple list operation it is passable. The lack of usage guidelines compared to siblings reduces completeness.

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 60% (limit, cursor, engagement have descriptions; since and minutes do not). The description adds meaning to 'minutes' by explaining it as a relative window, which is valuable. But it does not clarify 'since' or how 'cursor' works beyond the schema. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 returns recent terminal activity with previews, newest first. It identifies the resource (terminal activity) and behavior (newest first), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_segment or search. Still, the purpose is clear and not tautological.

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 gives a specific usage hint for the 'minutes' parameter ('Use minutes for a relative window'), which helps agents choose the right parameter. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions for selecting it over siblings like search or list_findings.

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