Get Object Activity

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description adds value by specifying the content ('full activity/audit log') and types of events ('state changes, transfers, and action executions'). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond them, though it lacks details like pagination or rate limits.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarifying the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and structured for quick understanding.

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 (retrieving logs), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what data is returned (activity log details) but could benefit from mentioning output format or pagination behavior to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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%, with parameters 'object_id' and 'limit' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for 'object_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full activity/audit log for an object'), specifying the scope with 'all state changes, transfers, and action executions.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_object' (which retrieves object metadata) or 'dual_list_objects' (which lists objects), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 implies usage for retrieving activity logs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_get_object' (for basic object info) or 'dual_search_objects' (for finding objects). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly guided.

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