history_listActivityInstances

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses specific return fields (activityId, name, type, startTime, endTime, duration, assignee) which substitutes for the missing output schema. However, it omits read-only safety confirmation, pagination behavior, and filtering capabilities.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose and scope; second sentence enumerates return fields. Information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

The phrase 'for a process instance' creates ambiguity given the empty input schema—it's unclear how the process instance is specified. Without annotations or output schema, the description should either explain the input mechanism or remove the qualifier. Return fields are adequately documented.

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?

Zero parameters present, which per guidelines warrants a baseline score of 4. The description mentions 'for a process instance' which implies filtering intent, but this does not constitute parameter documentation since the schema is empty.

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?

Specific verb 'Query' paired with resource 'historic activity instances'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like history_listProcessInstances and history_listTaskInstances by specifying the activity-level scope and mentioning user-task-specific fields (assignee).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus history_listTaskInstances (which also returns task data) or history_listProcessInstances. The mention of user-task fields hints at coverage but doesn't state selection criteria.

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