jules_get_task_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates the returned content (status, logs, progress, plan), implying a read-only, non-mutating call, but says nothing about log truncation, polling/rate limits, or freshness guarantees.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the payload in order of importance with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the right thing by naming what comes back (status, logs, progress, plan). It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, though it omits whether logs are paginated or how frequently status refreshes.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting the taskId format and an example. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own wording, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Fetches") and a rich, concrete resource set: real-time status, logs, step progress, and proposed plan for a Jules task. This clearly separates it from jules_list_tasks (enumerate) and jules_get_diff (diffs), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 says what is fetched but never when to reach for this over jules_list_tasks, jules_get_diff, or the plan/approval tools. "For a specific Jules task" implies you must already hold a taskId, but there is no stated precondition or alternative routing.

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