jules_list_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that activities/events are immutable, which supports repeated polling safely, and it explains the create_time-based snapshot behavior. However, it does not state pagination behavior, ordering, permission requirements, error behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics beyond the verb 'list'.

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 short and front-loaded: first the purpose, then a focused note on the most important parameter. Every sentence adds information, and there is no repetition or filler. The RFC 3339 clarification is especially valuable.

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 4-parameter list tool with no annotations, the description is only somewhat complete. It explains create_time and immutability, and an output schema is present, so return shape is less critical. However, it omits any explanation of pagination parameters, does not differentiate from sibling tools, and does not mention default filtering behavior or limitations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for create_time by giving its exact format, its filtering meaning, and a use case. But it says nothing about session_id, page_size, or page_token, leaving pagination and required-session semantics only implied by names and defaults. This is partial, not complete, compensation.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List immutable activities/events for a Jules session.' This is clear enough to distinguish it from jules_get_activity, which likely fetches a single activity, and from sibling list/session tools. It does not fully specify scope ('all', 'paginated'), but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a concrete usage hint: using create_time with an RFC 3339 timestamp is useful for incremental polling. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over jules_get_activity or jules_session_snapshot, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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