connects_activity

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral caveat: some views return page metadata rather than complete structured records, and completion should not be inferred. This is valuable context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and keeps the caveat short. There is no fluff, repetition, or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single parameter has an enum and default, annotations cover safety/open-world behavior, and an output schema exists, so the operational burden on the description is low. However, the description lacks any relational guidance among the many connects_* siblings and does not clarify which 'surfaces' correspond to which enum values, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely frames the view parameter as 'activity surfaces.' It does not explain individual enum values such as transcript-layout, service-hours, or their default behavior, leaving the agent to guess what each view returns.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and a resource ('personal activity surfaces'), which is concrete enough to orient an agent. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many connects_* siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus connects_dashboard, connects_events, connects_feed, or the other sibling read tools. The only conditional language ('Some return page metadata...') is an output-interpretation warning, not a tool-selection guideline.

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