jules_list_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it discloses useful behavior: chronological ordering, multiple activity types, list/stream capabilities, pagination, and filter support. It stops short of fully explaining stream semantics, output shape, or error behavior, but it is substantially transparent for a read-oriented tool.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource, scope, event types, ordering, streaming, pagination, and filtering. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler 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?

For a tool with four schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation context: what activities are included, ordering, filtering, and pagination/streaming. It is slightly incomplete on output shape and streaming lifecycle, but it is sufficient for correct selection and basic invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the context that filters are 'AIP-160' and that the result is paginated, but the schema already documents each parameter, so the description does not materially extend parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb+resource: 'List and stream the full chronological activity trail for a session.' It enumerates event categories and adds distinguishing features (pagination, AIP-160 filters) that separate it from siblings like get_activity, stream_progress, and get_session.

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 makes the use case clear: an agent needing the full chronological activity trail of a session should use this tool. It does not explicitly say 'use X instead for a single event' or mention exclusions, but the event scope and pagination/streaming language provide strong contextual guidance.

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