Activity

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent and open-world, but the description adds real context the annotations cannot: it consumes paid API credits, requires confirm=true, and clarifies the read-like POST does not publish to social platforms. This materially helps an agent understand cost and side-effect risk before calling.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers defaults, pagination and cost constraints in short sentences. Mostly tight, though the trailing sentence about read-like POSTs and social platforms reads as a generic disclaimer that is slightly tangential to the GitHub activity use case.

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 no output schema, the description usefully describes the return shape (activity array, one month at a time) alongside defaults, pagination and the credit/confirm requirements. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the absence of any explicit alternative-tool routing leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the cursor's paging semantics and the monthly granularity of the activity array, which is return-shape information not encoded in the schema. One parameter's role (account) is left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves GitHub profile contribution activity ... from the public profile activity timeline,' and grounds it as a per-user, per-year timeline. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling github_contributions, leaving some ambiguity an agent must resolve by inspecting both schemas.

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?

Gives useful operational guidance: year defaults to the current year, results are paginated one month at a time, and you pass the cursor from the previous response to page backward. It also flags the confirm=true prerequisite. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over github_contributions or the other github_* siblings, so selection guidance is only implied.

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