Get Gear Activities

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds only the UUID requirement, which is about input rather than behavior. It does not contradict annotations but also doesn't provide additional behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences: the first states the action, and the second provides a necessary note. It is well-structured and front-loaded without any unnecessary details.

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 and the schema covers inputs thoroughly. The description implies the return is a list of activities, which is reasonable given the name and purpose. It doesn't elaborate on output format, but for a straightforward get operation, it is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't elevate it.

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 retrieves activities filtered by a specific gear, which is a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct enough given the name and context.

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 provides a prerequisite note (requires gear UUID) but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on scenarios or comparisons with other gear-related tools.

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