jules_send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that sending a message occurs within an active session but does not mention any side effects, delivery guarantees, rate limits, or required permissions. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description is minimally adequate but lacks important behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise, using only two sentences. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with typical use cases. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential context: it requires an active session and lists common purposes. The parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema. While it omits discussion of return values (no output schema) and behavioral details, the overall completeness is adequate for a straightforward messaging tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (sessionId, prompt). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without enhancement.

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 action ('send a message'), the target entity ('Jules'), and the context ('within an active session'). It also lists specific use cases (feedback, questions, requests). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle plans, sessions, and activities.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to provide feedback, ask questions, or request changes'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though sibling tools are sufficiently distinct to avoid confusion.

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