Github Get User Activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds valuable behavioral nuance by explaining that repo_stars is cumulative, not period-specific, and clarifies date format acceptance. It does not disclose rate limits or pagination, but these are minor given the output schema exists.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second covers date formats, and the final sentence adds a critical caveat and alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover read-only behavior, the description covers most essential aspects: purpose, filters, date formats, and a notable caveat. However, it omits explanation of max_results semantics and any pagination behavior, which an agent might need. It is still fairly complete for its complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only explains since/until formats; org, repo, username, and max_results are left undefined. While org and repo are somewhat self-explanatory, max_results and the exact meaning of 'activities' are not clarified. This is a significant gap for a tool with six parameters.

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 tool's purpose: getting user activities with optional filters. It names the GraphQL API and explicitly contrasts with a sibling tool (github_get_repo_stars_since) for star deltas, which distinguishes it from related 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when not to use this tool for star deltas and directs to an alternative. The date format requirements are also clearly stated, giving concrete usage instructions.

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