Team Activity Tool

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

readOnlyHint is already declared, and the description reinforces it ("without changing anything") while adding real context the annotations cannot carry: the visibility model where hours are team-visible but collaborators only see their own hours and their projects. It does not describe response shape or how empty sections are represented, which keeps it short of a 5 given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core read semantics, then scope, then routing to alternatives — a sensible order. The middle sentence is long and packs four separate return groups into one breath, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with an annotation and no output schema, the description covers purpose, contents, alternatives, and the permission model that determines what results will actually contain. The only real gap is guidance on how the returned sections are structured, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 both parameters are already documented with bounds and defaults. The description only echoes the days default ("days, default 1") and says nothing about what the person filter matches or how it interacts with the team-wide sections, so it adds little beyond structured data — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb ("Reads") plus resource (team activity) with an enumeration of exactly what is returned: current focus, last-seen, recent updates, blockers, and a week-by-person/day/project chart. It explicitly contrasts itself with my_day and project_timeline, so an agent can pick it without opening sibling schemas.

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 an explicit selection rule ("Use it for 'what is the team doing?'") and names the two alternatives with their distinct conditions: my_day for one person's day, project_timeline for one project's history. This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern in full.

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