get_contact_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It lists activity types but does not disclose how 'recent' is defined, whether the operation is read-only, any pagination behavior, or what the response format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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-loaded with the core purpose and followed by relevant examples. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 (3 params, all documented), and the description gives sufficient context for selection. It lacks any mention of return value structure, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, this is a minor omission rather than a critical gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing natural-language examples ('John' vs '<id>') for contact_id and summarizing the activity_type enum in its list of activity types. This goes beyond the schema's field 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 clearly states 'Get recent activity for a contact' — a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the activity types (calls, emails, SMS, notes, system events) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_contact and list_contacts.

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 examples ('Show recent activity for John' or 'What happened with contact <id>?') provide clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls 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.