jules_get_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action implied by the name and provides no information about return format, error handling, side effects, or auth requirements. The existence of an output schema may cover some return details, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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, which is appropriately sized for a simple getter. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it omits essential context, making it feel under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 tool with two required parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to obtain the activity_id, what a Jules session is, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. The output schema exists but its content is unknown, and the description doesn't reference it. Overall, an agent lacks enough context to use the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameters at all. The parameter names (session_id, activity_id) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify their format, how to obtain them, or any constraints. Since the schema provides no help, the description fails to compensate.

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 states a clear action (get) and resource (one activity) with context (from a Jules session). It differentiates from jules_list_activities by specifying 'one' vs a list, making its purpose distinguishable. However, it doesn't mention the identifiers or that it fetches by ID, which is implied but not explicit.

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 like jules_list_activities or jules_get_session. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which this tool is preferred. The description gives no usage direction.

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