List Jules Session Activities

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It usefully discloses the contents (plan generation, progress updates, messages, completion) and ordering (most recent first), but does not mention pagination behavior, error conditions, or any access requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then add valuable detail about content and ordering. No redundant or wasted wording.

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 listing tool, the description provides the core purpose, activity types, and ordering. It does not describe the return shape or mention pagination, but the schema's pageToken and default limit cover those mechanics, and there are no annotations or output schema.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; it only reinforces that the log is for a session.

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 gets a detailed activity log for a Jules session and enumerates activity types, making the purpose apparent. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling jules_get_activity, but the plural 'activities' and 'log' convey a listing operation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jules_get_activity. The description implies it should be used when a session's activity history is needed, but it lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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