Get Session Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds additional behavioral context by detailing what the tool returns (full activity details, artifacts like code changes, bash output, media files, event types, timestamps) and by explaining the response_format parameter's effect. This goes beyond simple annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, retrieval details, args, returns, examples). It is somewhat repetitive of schema information but remains reasonably concise. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing insight.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete: it fully explains the input parameters, enumerates the return contents (event type, artifacts, timestamps), and provides actionable examples. The agent has sufficient context to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning beyond the schema by illustrating parameter usage with examples (e.g., using activityId to retrieve planGenerated or changeSet artifacts), which helps the agent understand how to select appropriate values.

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's purpose: 'Get details of a specific activity in a Jules session.' It uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('activity'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jules_list_activities, which lists activities rather than retrieving detailed info for a single one.

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 implies usage by noting required parameters (sessionId, activityId) and provides concrete examples (e.g., 'Get plan details: activity with planGenerated', 'Get code diff: activity with changeSet artifact'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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