get_asset_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'recent activity' without defining recency (e.g., default time range, sorting order). It fails to describe pagination, result limits, or behavior for multiple activity types. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 includes the verb, resource, and key included elements. No extraneous words; the description is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description lacks critical information such as return format, ordering, time range defaults, and scope (single asset). It is too sparse to fully guide an agent that cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter well. The description adds marginal value by grouping types (logins, processes, network connections) but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond schema defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'asset activity', and explicitly lists included types (logins, processes, network connections). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_asset' (details) and 'search_assets' (search), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when needing recent activity for a specific asset, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_asset_activity' or log-based tools). No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer context.

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