conduyt_list_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that it lists recent activities and enumerates types; it omits critical details such as default sort order, what 'recent' means, pagination behavior, and whether the operation is read-only (though implied).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and the types of activities returned.

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 tool with six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not describe return format, ordering, pagination, or any behavioral nuances. The agent would need to consult the schema for basic details and still lack critical context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain filter interactions, defaults, or format expectations. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('activities') and enumerates the types covered, making the tool's scope clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like conduyt_list_calls or conduyt_list_messages that also retrieve activity-related data.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it returns a cross-type feed, nor does it indicate when to prefer type-specific list tools. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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