Recent activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations — the event taxonomy and the newest-first ordering — but says nothing about volume, truncation, or how the limit ceiling behaves.

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?

A single sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the event list compactly parenthesized. Nothing is padding, though the trailing 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation.

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?

With three optional parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is only adequate: it explains what kinds of events come back, but leaves the limit parameter and the return shape (fields per event, pagination or cap behavior) undocumented.

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 carry all parameter meaning. It conveys the purpose of profileId and action as optional filters, but never mentions the limit parameter at all, and gives no hint about what valid 'action' values look like despite the absence of an enum.

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 concrete resource ('recent workspace activity') and enumerates what it contains (launches, edits, macro and warm-up runs, proxy changes), plus ordering ('newest first'). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like get_run_status or get_macro, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: 'optionally for one profile or one action' signals that the parameters are filters rather than requirements, so an agent can infer the no-arg case returns everything. There is no statement of when to prefer this over a status-specific tool such as get_run_status or a listing tool such as list_sessions.

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