show_code_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('unified diff format that can be displayed to users') and a performance consideration ('Omit to get all diffs (may be large)'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear for a tool with no 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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states purpose and output, second provides usage guidelines, third explains optional parameter usage. Every sentence adds value without repetition, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 does well by explaining the output format and usage workflow. It covers the main use case and optional parameters adequately. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety or output info, it could benefit from more detail on error handling or response structure to be fully complete.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the optional activityId parameter and references get_work_in_progress output for its IDs, but this is redundant with the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('show the actual code diff'), resource ('files from a Jules session'), and output format ('unified diff format'). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_code_review_context for context and specifying this tool is for drilling into file changes, unlike broader session management tools like get_session_state or list_sessions.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use after get_code_review_context to drill into specific file changes.' It also specifies when to use the optional activityId parameter ('Can optionally show diff from a specific activity') and references where to get that ID ('use activity IDs from get_code_review_context output'). This clearly defines the workflow context and alternatives.

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