hai_check_activity

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, and it only reveals that classification is deterministic. It does not state whether the tool has side effects, whether it requires an authorized session, what constitutes valid activity_step values, or what the classification outcome looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with eight parameters.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which satisfies basic conciseness. However, it is under-specified and lacks the structure needed to guide parameter selection or usage; it is concise to a fault rather than effectively condensed.

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?

This is a complex tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, yet the description provides no context about required inputs, output semantics, or operational constraints. The presence of an output schema only excuses return-value explanation, not the many other missing operational details. The description is far from 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the eight parameters, but it mentions none of them. The agent receives no explanation of session_id, activity_step, evidence, criterion_id, trace_events, or other inputs, making it impossible to invoke the tool correctly based on the description.

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 states a clear verb ('classify') and resource ('planned or observed activity against the mission contract'), which gives the agent a distinct sense of the tool's role. It does not explicitly name sibling differences, so it loses the fifth point, but it is far from tautological or vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hai_proof, hai_drift_check, or hai_checkpoint. The description implies it is for evaluating activity against a mission contract, but it provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite context, leaving the agent to guess.

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