list-activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral quirk that a filter is required, and frames the tool as a read-only audit trail. It does not mention pagination limits or response format, but those are partially covered by the schema's fetch_all description.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediately followed by a critical usage constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential purpose and the required parameters. It omits return structure, but that is self-evident from the phrase 'list timeline activities'. The schema fills in pagination details via fetch_all.

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 75% and already explains filter_by, filter_on, and fetch_all. The description reiterates the enum values for filter_by and clarifies filter_on, but adds little beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on page or fetch_all further.

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 tool lists timeline activities, and provides specific examples (notes, emails, stage moves) that distinguish it from sibling tools like list-notes or list-events. The verb 'list' plus the resource 'timeline activities' makes 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to view the full audit trail) and highlights a critical usage requirement: the API mandates filter_by and filter_on. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is well-defined enough to imply appropriate use.

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