aap_get_recent_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds the context that this is an 'audit trail of changes' and that the return is a JSON string with activity events. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or potential rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotations.

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 concise: a single lead sentence plus a structured Args/Returns block. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the parameter list is easy to scan. Slight redundancy with schema descriptions exists, but it does not waste words.

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 tool is a simple read operation with an output schema and annotations, so the description need not explain return values in depth. However, it lacks guidance on how it differs from aap_get_audit_logs, and 'recent' is not quantified. The filter options are covered, but the overall context of when this is the right tool is missing.

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 top-level schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section compensates by listing all inner parameters (limit, operation, object_type, username) with brief meanings. The schema itself provides descriptions for three of these, but the description adds the 'Number of events' semantics for limit, which is missing in the schema. This goes beyond the bare schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get recent AAP activity stream (audit trail of changes).' It clearly identifies the tool as a read operation for recent activity events. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'aap_get_audit_logs', the purpose is specific and not a tautology.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like aap_get_audit_logs. The description implies usage for recent activity but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool might be more appropriate.

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