List activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant and earns no credit. Beyond that, the description genuinely adds behavior: results are ordered newest first and each entry carries the token that performed the action. It does not say whether history is bounded or how far back it goes, keeping it at 4.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payload contents, then the use case. Only the closing 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation, a minor cost against otherwise zero-waste prose.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (action types plus the acting token) and the ordering, so an agent can call it competently. Retention window and absence of time-range filtering are unstated, a small remaining gap.

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 single 'limit' parameter is already fully documented including the 1–100 range and default. The description only echoes the newest-first ordering, which the schema also states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('list recent actions on the account') and enumerates the action types it covers (moves, reconnects, rotations, renames, tokens created), which separates it from list_devices/get_device by making clear it is an audit trail rather than a resource listing. Sibling names are not cited explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete use cases: answering 'what changed?' and auditing an assistant's actions. That is a clear context for selection, but it names no alternative tool or exclusion (e.g. when to prefer get_device for current state), so it stops at a strong 4.

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