Get admin activity log

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that results are recent, site-wide, and ordered most-recent-first. It does not mention return fields, pagination behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or what 'admin actions' includes beyond the examples.

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 tight sentence with no redundant words. Key information—what the tool returns, scope, and ordering—is front-loaded effectively.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description still gives only a high-level idea of the response content. An agent can likely call it correctly, but it would benefit from knowing the response shape or available event types.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description does not mention it at all. Although the parameter's schema constraints make it somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage as required.

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 identifies the resource as an admin activity log and the verb as getting it, with concrete examples like content edits and publishes. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like get_content_analytics or list_content, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 the tool should be used when recent admin actions are needed, especially for content moderation or publishing activity. However, it does not state when to prefer this over related tools or mention any exclusions, leaving usage mostly to inference.

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