get_daily_activity

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

With no annotations, the description correctly states it returns per-day counts, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a simple read tool, the behavior is adequately transparent.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource; the second adds use context.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description clarifies it returns 'per-day counts', which is adequate for a simple numeric result. More detail on the count types (e.g., sent vs received) could improve completeness.

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 the description does not need to re-document parameters. The phrase 'over a time period' aligns with dateFrom/dateTo but adds no new semantic detail 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 clearly states the action 'get', the specific resource 'daily email activity counts', and the scope 'for a board over a time period'. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_closed_activity or get_avg_response_time, which target different data.

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 says 'useful for volume trends and workload analysis', implying when to use. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to alternatives, such as when to use get_closed_activity instead.

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