get_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a read operation (non-destructive), indicates ordering (newest-first), and reveals that old and new values are included. This provides good transparency about what the tool does and its output characteristics.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information. It front-loads the purpose, then details input and output behavior. No redundant or unnecessary text; every sentence 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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers input types, ordering, and output content. It is missing explicit mention of pagination behavior (e.g., offset zero-indexed, default limit) but the schema provides those details. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple read tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the identifier parameter can be an issue ID, page ID, or project ID, and that project scope returns the entire feed. This enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 reads the audit log, specifying the verb 'Read' and the resource 'audit log'. It provides specific details about what information is returned (who, what, when, through which door, old/new values). No sibling tool appears to serve the same purpose, so differentiation is not an issue.

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 that the tool takes an issue, page, or project ID and that project scope covers the whole feed. This gives context on when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. Usage guidance is adequate but could be more explicit.

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