Activity Digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses output ordering (newest first), grouping (by day), and cross-tool scope (across the configured tools), which goes beyond the schema. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only', the digest nature strongly implies a non-mutating query.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and directly followed by a usage directive. No redundant or filler wording; each clause contributes meaningful information about the tool's behavior.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema) and the description explains the return structure and scope adequately. It mentions default window indirectly via schema, and sibling tools like standup_draft and weekly_summary provide additional context for when this digest is the right choice.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, explaining 'days' as look-back and 'since' as an ISO start override with default behavior. The description itself doesn't mention parameters, but with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as 'a chronological digest of everything you did' with explicit format details (newest first, grouped by day) and scope (across configured tools). It also distinguishes itself from the 'opinionated standup framing', which differentiates it from sibling tool standup_draft.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to reconstruct what actually happened' and contrasts it with standup framing, giving a clear use case. It doesn't name alternatives directly, but the context and sibling tool names make the appropriate choice apparent.

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