Github Get User Activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable context about date formats and the cumulative nature of repo_stars, and it points to a skill for conventions. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 compact, with the main purpose front-loaded and supporting details (date formats, sibling tool, skill) neatly organized. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, filtering, date formats, and a notable behavioral nuance. The only gap is the max_results parameter semantics, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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. It explains org/repo filtering and gives precise date formats for since/until, but it does not mention max_results or its effect. This partial coverage earns a 3 – helpful but not complete.

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 action ('Get user activities') and the resource, and adds filtering dimensions (org, repo, date range) that distinguish it from other get tools. It also explicitly references the sibling github_get_repo_stars_since for a specific use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides a concrete alternative (github_get_repo_stars_since) and a workflow hint (github_get_skill('user-activity')). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare against other user-activity-related tools, leaving some selection responsibility to the agent.

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