list_activity

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds ordering (newest first), the pagination mechanism (before_id cursor), the fact that undo is not exposed via the API, and the required scope ("Requires audit:read"). The auth requirement and the undo limitation are exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then filters, then pagination, then the sibling disambiguation and auth note — a sound ordering. The long parenthetical source list and the compressed "who did what to which file and where" phrasing make it dense, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a six-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers scope, ordering, filtering model, pagination, an exclusion, and the auth scope — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the actor enum values, the 1-200 limit range, RFC 3339 for since, and the before_id cursor semantics. The description only restates the filter dimensions (source kind, action, time, node history) at a higher level without adding format or combination rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List recent changes to the drive") plus scope ("from every source (web, Android app, WebDAV, agents, file requests, background jobs)") and ordering ("newest first: who did what to which file and where"). It also names the sibling it is not (list_audit), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: "For the log of MCP tool calls themselves, use list_audit." It also states a boundary the agent would otherwise have to discover at runtime — "Undo is only available to the user in the app" — which prevents a futile undo attempt.

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