get_space_activities

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states a simple return of activities, with no mention of pagination, rate limits, side effects, or data freshness. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Vital information about parameters, intended usage, and behavior is missing. The brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. The agent cannot infer return format, pagination behavior, or how parameters interact. A more complete description is needed for safe and correct tool usage.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for each, so the schema already provides good documentation. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema offers. According to the guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and this 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 states the function: 'Returns list of space activities'. It specifies the verb (returns) and the resource (space activities), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_issues or get_project_list, which could also return lists.

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. The description lacks context such as prerequisites, required filters, or typical use cases. The agent cannot determine if this is the appropriate tool without additional information.

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