list_activities

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing behavior and specifies the exact content: 'the 8 supported event types with all accepted synonyms.' It does not explicitly state that nothing is mutated or describe output format, but the simple listing behavior is sufficiently disclosed for this low-risk tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that provides the core purpose first and the usage rationale second. The bilingual portion is compact and non-redundant. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the zero-parameter schema, no output schema, and simple listing behavior, the description is complete. It states what is listed, how many items, the language coverage, and how an agent should use it in relation to pick_auspicious_dates. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the output validates the 'activity argument' for another tool, which tells an agent exactly how to use the returned values. This exceeds the baseline expected for a no-parameter tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List the 8 supported event types with all accepted synonyms (EN/CN)'. It also differentiates itself from siblings by framing the tool as a validation lookup for pick_auspicious_dates, which makes its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 clear guidance: 'use this to validate the activity argument before calling pick_auspicious_dates.' It identifies the appropriate context and indicates that this tool is a prerequisite step, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with other siblings.

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