agentbay_activity_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the nature of the output (intents, tasks, files) but does not mention any behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Since it is a read-only query, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence of 17 words. It front-loads the key information (see what other agents are doing) and concisely elaborates on the outputs. No extraneous content.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (intents, tasks, files) and the scope (current activity in project). An agent has sufficient information to use it correctly.

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% with a single parameter 'projectId' described as 'Project ID'. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 (see), resource (what other agents are doing in this project), and specific outputs (intents, tasks, files). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like agentbay_agent_memory_query (memory-specific) and agentbay_knowledge_query (knowledge-specific).

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 a usage context: to monitor current agent activity. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, the intent is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it. Lacks explicit exclusion criteria, but sibling tool names offer differentiation.

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