Get case activity

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with a read-only, non-blocking operation. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the exact return shape: events[], per-event cursor, latestCursor, hasMore, and a verdict block, including the condition under which the verdict is non-null.

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?

Three dense sentences: the first states the operation, the second describes the response contract, and the third gives routing guidance. Every sentence contributes unique value and the most important usage distinction 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?

For a read-only paginated feed with no output schema, the description fully explains what the caller gets back, how to continue paging, and when to choose an alternative. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and read-only annotation, nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents caseId, after, limit, and types. The description mentions cursor-based pagination and event types, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a page of a case's activity feed,' and enumerates the event types involved (votes, comments, evidence marks, jury joins, closure). It also names the sibling tools it should not be confused with, making the purpose immediately distinguishable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'for a one-shot read,' and tells the agent to use tribeunal_await_case_activity or tribeunal_await_verdict when blocking is needed. This directly addresses tool selection among closely related siblings.

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