get_activities

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination via limit/offset and lists return types, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, data scope (e.g., user vs org), or whether activities are up-to-date.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a clear parameter list and return description. It is slightly lengthy due to the parameter list but remains focused and front-loaded.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the parameters and return type adequately. However, it lacks details on how filters combine (AND/OR) and the scope of activities (current user vs entire org), leaving minor gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, leaving the parameters undocumented in the schema itself. The tool description's Args section provides clear, meaningful explanations for all six parameters, adding essential semantics beyond the schema types and defaults.

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/interaction history with optional filtering by specific IDs. It is distinct from simple get tools but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_contact_history or get_job_history, which may overlap.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activity_count, get_contact_history, or get_job_history. The description lacks context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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