pyp6xer_get_activity_schema

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds detail about the type of data returned (field names) and the distinction between summary and detail fields, which is beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each essential. First states purpose, second explains usage, third clarifies field differentiation. No extraneous words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema (implied by field names), the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns and how to use the result with sibling tools.

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?

Tool has no parameters, so no parameter semantics needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description still provides useful context about the output schema (field names) but doesn't need to describe parameters.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Return the available field names for activity read tools' and distinguishes between summary_fields and detail_fields. It names specific sibling tools that use these fields, making the purpose crystal clear.

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?

Explains that field names should be used with the `fields` parameter of other activity tools to limit response size. Differentiates when summary_fields vs detail_fields apply. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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