Get Script Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the dual-mode behavior (processes vs. metrics) which is useful, but it does not disclose details like pagination behavior or authentication requirements. The description is consistent with annotations and adds some value beyond them.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and the two key modes. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and the most important information is 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 high schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and annotations that establish safety, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only minor context such as explicit clarification that script_id is required for metrics (though the schema covers this). The tool is a read-only operation with clear modes, so nothing critical 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the explanatory burden.

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 'Read' and the resource 'execution activity for scripts', and further specifies two modes: 'recent processes' and 'aggregate metrics'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_script_project or run_script_function, which serve different purposes. The purpose is 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 for reading execution activity but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but there is no explicit guidance on selection.

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