get_closed_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly implies read-only behavior but does not disclose rate limits, data range limits, or response structure. Minimal behavioral context beyond the core function.

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: first defines the core functionality, second adds context. No fluff, every sentence is valuable. Perfectly sized 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the return format (e.g., array of objects with date and count). It only says 'count per day', leaving ambiguity about the structure. Lacks an example of the response shape.

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% with all parameters documented. The description reinforces the board context and count nature but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'count of closed/resolved threads per day for a board'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_daily_activity' by focusing on closed/resolved threads, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a use case ('tracking team throughput and resolution rates') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_daily_activity' or what prerequisites are required. Usage is implied but lacks exclusion criteria.

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