get_activity_intervals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (per-second Activity file), that %FTP derives from the Activity snapshot FTP rather than current FTP, and that missing stats come with an explanatory note. It stops short of stating failure modes (missing streams, permission needs), so it is not a 5.

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 core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact field enumeration and two short clarifications. Every sentence carries information, though the field list is dense enough to be slightly list-like rather than 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return payload, which it does thoroughly by naming every returned statistic plus the explanation field. Combined with the source-of-truth note for %FTP, an agent has enough to call and interpret results correctly.

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, and the description's 'every 5 min by default' merely restates the schema default of 300. It adds only light framing ('fixed-size splits') without new format or constraint detail, matching the 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?

The description names a specific resource (splits of one Activity) and a concrete operation, and it enumerates the returned statistics so the agent knows exactly what a call yields. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, get_window_stats, but the 'fixed-size splits' framing makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by the fixed-size split framing and the default 5-minute interval, so an agent can infer this is for binned whole-activity analysis. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_window_stats or get_activity_streams, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. activity must have a per-second file) are stated.

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