get_client_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the data source (persisted snapshots) and the kind of data returned, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or any potential side effects, such as performance impact or authorization requirements.

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 only two sentences, with the first delivering the core purpose and the second adding a usage tip. Every word is meaningful; no redundancy.

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 tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the 'what' and 'why' but lacks details on default behavior (e.g., default time range if no parameters provided) or the structure of the returned data.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds semantic value by highlighting that startTime/endTime are for focusing on an incident window, which reinforces their purpose beyond the schema.

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 retrieves time-bucketed client activity from snapshots, specifying metrics like connection counts and command distribution. It is distinct from sibling tools such as get_clients (current clients) or get_slowlog (slow queries).

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 advises using startTime/endTime to focus on an incident window, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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