get_user_recent_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get recent activity' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, how 'recent' is defined (e.g., time range, pagination), or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns user data.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded but lacks depth, as it could benefit from more context to improve usability without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity of fetching user activity data, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recent activity' includes, how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), leaving the agent under-informed for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'user' parameter clearly documented as 'The user's AniList ID (Number ID only, DO NOT use username, any kind of string or other types except for numbers.)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get recent activity from a user' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent activity from a user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'recent activity' entails (e.g., posts, updates, interactions) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_activity' or 'get_user_activity', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_activity' and 'get_user_activity' present, the description lacks any indication of differences in scope, context, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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