get_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: 'cross-alert' scope and 'newest first' ordering. It does not say how much history is retained or that the limit caps the window, which matters for a log-style read.

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?

One tight fragment with zero filler, and the ordering constraint is placed at the end where it is easy to scan. The missing verb makes it read as a label rather than an instruction, costing a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a single-optional-param read, listing the included record types plus ordering is close to sufficient; only the meaning of the limit window is left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only conveys ordering ('newest first'), not what limit does or its default of 20 / max of 100. The bounds live in the schema, so the agent can still call it, but the description adds little parameter help.

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?

Names a specific resource and enumerates its contents (end states, guardrail decisions, confirm/reject actions, proposals) plus ordering, which is far more informative than 'get activity' alone. It lacks an explicit verb and never differentiates itself from siblings like get_trace or list_alerts, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus get_trace, list_alerts, or get_usage — the agent must infer from the content list. There are no exclusions or prerequisites given.

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