mfuns_activity_log

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the log is organized by date as JSON files and that filters are optional, which is useful. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only semantics beyond the word 'query' or mention error handling or permission requirements, leaving some burden unmet.

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 one introductory sentence plus a tight three-item Args list. Everything earns its place with no fluff or repetition, and the main purpose appears first.

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, three-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and data organization. No critical context is missing, and the tool's role relative to siblings is distinct.

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 zero parameter descriptions, but the description's Args section fully compensates: it gives the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), clarifies 'tool' is an optional filter by tool name, and defines 'target_id' as filtering by affected object ID. This exceeds the minimal schema types.

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 the tool queries the Activity Log, a record of every tool call stored as date-separated JSON files. It specifies the resource (Activity Log) and the action (query), and distinguishes it from sibling content-reading tools by focusing on operation logs.

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 usage: call this when you need to audit tool operations by date, optionally filtered by tool or target ID. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the unique purpose among siblings makes the context clear.

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