get_user_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches an activity feed with optional filtering and pagination, and mentions it returns 'a list of UserAction objects.' However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the structure of UserAction objects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure but misses key behavioral aspects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The bulleted list for filter values is efficient, and the usage guidelines are concise. However, the 'Args:' section slightly duplicates schema information, and the structure could be more streamlined by integrating the parameter details into the main flow without separate headings.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns a list of UserAction objects'), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and basic parameter context. The main gap is the lack of behavioral details like rate limits or auth requirements, but the output schema reduces the need to explain return values in the description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats the filter values in a bulleted list and clarifies the offset as 'Pagination offset (0, 30, 60, ...)', which is already in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't add significant semantic context.

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 the specific action ('Fetch a user's activity feed') and resource ('user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_replies or get_user_topics by emphasizing it provides 'detailed activity analysis beyond just replies.' This explicitly differentiates its broader scope from more focused sibling tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use this for detailed activity analysis beyond just replies. For most cases, get_user_replies or get_user_topics are simpler.' This clearly defines the context (detailed analysis) and names specific simpler alternatives, helping the agent choose appropriately.

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