jules_get_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool works on both completed and active sessions and indicates the output type, suggesting a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state safety, authentication requirements, or potential edge cases (e.g., empty diff).

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes, with no repetition or fluff.

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 simple extraction tool, the description adequately specifies the return value ('unified git patch diff') and a key constraint (session state). While no output schema exists, the description names what is returned. It could mention details like error handling or account_id behavior, but overall it is complete enough for this scale.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both session_id and account_id. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('unified git patch diff') from a Jules session, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jules_get_session or jules_list_activities by focusing on diffs.

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, or any exclusions. The description implies its use for retrieving diffs, but an agent is left without context on when to select it over other session-related tools.

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