connects_activity

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral warning beyond the annotations: some views return page metadata rather than complete structured records, so the agent should not infer completion from them. This is valuable context that the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations do not convey.

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 compact: two sentences, no filler, and the key warning is placed second. It could be more informative without becoming verbose, but it earns its length.

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 simple optional one-parameter tool with a full enum, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance, but the core read semantics and the important metadata caveat are present.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'view' parameter, its possible values, or how to choose among them. The enum in the schema is self-documenting to some degree, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('personal activity surfaces'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other domains like events, people, or courses. It does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, but 'activity surfaces' is reasonably specific and the view enum further clarifies the scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connects_dashboard, connects_feed, or blackboard_activity. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred contexts, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the name and enum alone.

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