get_hacktivity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement, the data scope (publicly disclosed reports), and implicitly that it is a read-only feed. It does not mention rate limits or pagination details beyond the page parameter, but these are less critical for a simple public feed.

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 two sentences plus a single args line, with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 one-parameter public feed tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, auth, and the page argument. No major gaps remain; it could optionally mention that the result is a list, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 add meaning. It only restates 'Page number (default 1)', which duplicates the schema's own title and default. It does not clarify 1-based indexing, page size, or upper bounds, adding negligible value over the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('public YesWeHack hacktivity feed') and clarifies it contains publicly disclosed reports. This distinguishes it from sibling report tools like list_reports or get_report.

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 notes 'No authentication required', implying use for public data without credentials. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as list_reports or get_report, leaving when-not-to-use to inference.

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