recent_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the pagination mechanism (cursor-style backward paging via before_id), which is real behavioral information. However it omits the default limit behavior, what the day/app_id filters do to results, ordering guarantees, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the paging hint immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and four parameters at 0% schema coverage, three of which are unexplained anywhere. For a paged read tool this leaves major gaps (filter semantics, default result size, ordering) that the description should have closed.

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 document all four parameters, yet it only explains before_id. The meaning and format of day, limit (default 20), and app_id are left entirely to inference, so the majority of parameters remain undocumented.

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 ('Read') and resource ('latest observations with source text'), and implies a reverse-chronological feed distinct from the single-item siblings like read_observation and read_day_flow. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied (get a recent-activity feed) and the description never says when to prefer this over read_observation, day_sessions, or search_screen_memory. It does give actionable paging guidance ('pass the last id as before_id to page backward'), which is a genuine usage instruction, preventing a 2.

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