tie_recent_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details how IoE alerts are enriched, how IoA is sourced per directory, how results are merged and sorted, UTC timestamp usage, and the separate budgeting of max_items with truncation reported in 'notes.' This is comprehensive and goes far beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then logically flows into data sources, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value; the 'Args' list is a compact and clear way to document seven parameters without verbose prose. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides substantial context: data sources, enrichment, merging, sorting, truncation reporting, and defaults. It does not explicitly describe the output item structure, but the mention of 'deviance detail (checker + rendered description)' gives a partial picture. This is strong but leaves some ambiguity about the exact return format.

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 schema provides only titles and defaults with zero descriptions, but the description's 'Args' section thoroughly explains every parameter, including hours, profile_id, include_ioe/ioa, directory_ids, max_items, and verbose. It also clarifies nuanced behavior like max_items applying separately to IoE and IoA and 'across all directories' for IoA. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Unified recent-activity timeline of IoE alerts and IoA attacks in one call,' which uses a specific verb ('timeline') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tie_alerts and tie_attacks, which likely handle each category separately. 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 gives a concrete example question ('show me IoE/IoA in the last 12 hours') and explains the data sources, which implies when to use this tool. It references tie_profiles for the profile_id parameter, providing a cross-tool pointer. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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