Get activity

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the default response is only 'id + etag' and that specific fields must be requested. This supplements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a crucial usage requirement. No unnecessary words.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a critical constraint (field requirement). It is largely complete, though it could optionally detail the format of the 'fields' parameter.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides minimal additional meaning. It mentions that specific fields must be requested, which hints at the importance of the 'fields' parameter, but does not explain its format or the 'activity_id' parameter beyond what the schema already shows.

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 'Returns a single activity', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'clio_list_activities' which returns multiple activities.

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 includes an important usage requirement: 'You MUST request specific fields', which guides the agent on how to use the tool effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a single activity versus a list is needed.

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