Teamwork: latest activity

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds that it is chronological and mirrors the widget, providing slight context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering details, or potential response size, which would be valuable for an 8-parameter tool with no output schema. The description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, the second lists filtering options. Information is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, 0 required, and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and filter dimensions. It does not describe the return format (e.g., a list of activity objects) or pagination details, but these are partially inferable from the parameter names. Given the tool is a read-only feed and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, it is mostly complete, though a brief note on response structure would improve it.

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 75% (6 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description summarizes filters as 'project, user, type or date range', which aligns with projectId, userIds, activityTypes, and since/until parameters already described in the schema. It does not add new meaning beyond the schema; page and pageSize are not mentioned but are self-explanatory from their schema definitions. With high schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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's purpose: 'Chronological feed of recent activity across all projects' with explicit examples (comments, task updates, files, milestones) and mentions it mirrors the Teamwork activity widget. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_projects, which target specific entities, making it unambiguous what this tool does.

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 context that it's a cross-project activity feed and mentions filterable dimensions (project, user, type, date range). While it doesn't explicitly say when to use it over alternatives, the 'activity feed' framing clearly separates it from sibling list tools. It lacks explicit exclusions or 'use instead' guidance, but the intent is evident.

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