get_my_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that a numeric user ID is required and that the feed is recent, but it does not clarify visibility rules, ordering, or whether the feed is limited to the authenticated user, leaving the my/user ambiguity unresolved.

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 sentence with a clear action, a useful parenthetical list of content types, and a relevant requirement. Every word contributes to the tool definition.

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?

For a straightforward read tool with fully documented parameters, this is sufficient to call it correctly. It could further clarify the return payload and the intended scope (current user vs any user), but the provided information is mostly adequate.

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%, so user_id, limit, and offset are already documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond repeating the numeric ID requirement and does not explain how limit/offset function together.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get a user's recent activity feed') and lists the content types included. It is distinguishable from other tools by the content categories, though the tool name 'my' vs 'a user' creates slight ambiguity.

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 the intent is for the overall user activity feed rather than a narrow sibling like get_my_goals or get_book_activities. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when to avoid it.

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