Activity aggregation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'aggregate counts' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is helpful. It does not state that explicitly, nor does it hint at cost or result-size characteristics beyond what the schema's limit default conveys.

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 sentences: the capability and its grouping axes first, then usage examples and the optional scope. Every clause earns its place with no restatement of the title.

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?

All four parameters are optional and fully described in the schema, and 'aggregate counts grouped by' implicitly conveys the row-and-count return shape. Since there is no output schema, a brief statement of the result form would have closed the remaining gap.

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 range, group_by, limit, and source_app are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the framing that source_app is an optional scoping filter; no extra syntax or defaulting nuance beyond the schema.

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 operation (aggregate counts) over a specific resource (clips and transcriptions) and enumerates the grouping dimensions, which lets an agent distinguish it from list-style siblings like eve_recent. It stops short of differentiating from eve_app_stats, which plausibly overlaps on per-app counts.

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?

Two concrete example questions ('what apps did I work in today', 'when am I most active this week') map directly onto the group_by choices, and 'Optionally scope to one app' signals the source_app use case. No explicit when-not or named alternative among the many siblings is given.

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