List research activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, and 'Supports optional ... filters' describes basic behavior. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, result ordering, whether data is current or archived, or any limitations on returned items. These gaps are noticeable for a list tool with no annotation support.

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 with no redundant phrasing. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second lists the optional filters. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, and the input schema provides detailed constraints for each parameter. The description covers the tool's selection context and filter capabilities, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and behavioral notes like sorting or pagination, but given the schema richness, the definition is complete enough for an agent to use it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does summarize the filter dimensions as 'date, activity type, and tag filters', which adds meaning beyond the raw parameter names for start_date, end_date, activity_type, and tag. However, it omits the 'limit' parameter entirely and does not clarify that start_date and end_date form a range. The compensation is partial, 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('persisted research history'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It also adds the context of 'past work, recent experiments, or unresolved problems', which distinguishes it from sibling list tools targeting candidate intelligence or knowledge briefs. The resource is unique enough that an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'for questions about past work, recent experiments, or unresolved problems' provides clear situational context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5, but it clearly signals the intended use case.

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