get_activity

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the log contains scene completions, reviews, and errors, and that lines are the most recent. It doesn't describe formatting, ordering, or empty-log behavior, but with annotations this is adequate.

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 with no filler; the core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with safety annotations and no output schema, this description provides the resource, what it returns, and representative content types. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter ('Number of lines to return (default 20, max 200)'), and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema description coverage.

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?

Description opens with 'Read the most recent lines from the daemon's activity log', naming a specific verb, resource, and temporal scope. It further distinguishes itself from sibling getters (get_progress, get_review_state, get_status) by naming the log and its content (scene completions, reviews, errors).

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The description implies usage for inspecting recent daemon activity, but doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over sibling getters like get_status or get_review_state. The content hint partially compensates.

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