List Workspace Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, plus has output schema. The description adds value by noting that sensitive fields are masked and that it uses the command bus, and the 'newest first' ordering. It does not contradict annotations; in fact, it reinforces them. Some behavioral aspects like pagination or default limit are covered by schema (default 50) but description adds masking which is beyond schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope, then a practical use case. No filler or redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value.

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 a rich output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is sufficient. It mentions masking (a key behavior) and the diagnostic use case. Missing explicit note about pagination or default limit, but schema covers that. The tool is read-only with annotations, so no need to disclose mutations. Slightly could mention that it doesn't filter by connection type, but not essential.

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% for both parameters (limit, workspaceId) with good descriptions including defaults and active workspace semantics. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 lists recent workspace activity events, specifying the event types (workspace, connection, API, database, SSH) and the order (newest first). It distinguishes from siblings like unfour.connection.list or unfour.api.list_history by focusing on 'activity events' across all types via the command bus.

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 explains when to use it ('useful for diagnosing what changed before a failure started'), implying a diagnostic context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use, but the purpose clarity and sibling list implicitly distinguish it. Lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.

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