get_bash_outputs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content (commands, stdout/stderr, exit codes) and implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination for potentially large outputs.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose and return values, while the second provides usage context, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and basic usage, but lacks completeness for a tool with 2 parameters and potentially complex return data. It does not address behavioral aspects like error cases or output structure details.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'activityIds' might filter results or the format of 'sessionId'.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bash command outputs from a Jules session'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on shell command execution data rather than session management, code review, or planning functions.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to understand what shell commands were run'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'jules_list_activities' or 'get_session_state'.

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