notlai_get_note_activity

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results are ordered most recent first, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or any rate limits. Behavioral transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences with essential information front-loaded. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Efficiently communicates purpose and key behavior.

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 only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for selection: it covers what data is returned and ordering. However, it could mention if there are any time constraints or pagination details. Overall, highly useful for a straightforward activity 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and schema descriptions for both parameters (noteId as ULID, limit with default) are clear. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema baseline, so score is 3.

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 retrieves activity history of a note, specifying the details it returns (who, what, when, which AI) and the order (most recent first). It distinguishes itself from sibling note tools by focusing on activity.

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 viewing note activity but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_note for content, list_notes for overview). No exclusions or context about prerequisites.

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