activity_log

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

Description discloses the company-wide scope and the multi-source merging behavior. Mentions the row count behavior with combined filters. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it address pagination, ordering, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, and these omissions leave some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, usage guidance, and a behavioral nuance. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded with the tool's function. No unnecessary words or 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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and usage well but lacks details about the output format. Since there is no output schema, the agent might need to infer the structure of timeline entries. For a feed tool, mentioning that each entry includes timestamp, actor, and source would increase completeness. However, the description is sufficient for basic invocation.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the source enum values concretely (e.g., 'Slack messages' maps to slack) and clarifying the interaction between source and actor filters. Since schema description coverage is 50%, the description compensates by illustrating how parameters combine. It does not detail the 'since' or 'limit' parameters beyond what the schema provides, but the overall semantic contribution is significant.

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 defines the tool as a company-wide activity feed merging Slack, Linear, call summaries, and agent work logs. It provides specific example queries ('what happened', 'what did I miss'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_slack or search_linear which focus on single sources.

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?

Explicitly states when to call the tool: when users ask about overall activity or catching up. Provides a behavioral note about row counts when both source and actor are set. Does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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