jules_list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering (newest first?), auth requirements, or what constitutes 'active'. It only hints at scope with 'recent and active', leaving most behavior undisclosed.

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 with zero filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal conciseness given the missing usage and behavior context.

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 simple read-only list tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description is minimal but serviceable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about what a returned task contains and how results are ordered/limited.

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 both 'repo' and 'limit' (including its default of 10 and format "owner/repo") are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

The description gives a clear verb ('Lists') and resource ('coding tasks handled by Google Jules AI') with a scope qualifier ('recent and active'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from jules_get_task_status (single task) but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this list tool versus siblings like jules_get_task_status or how the repo/limit filters change the intent. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the 'recent and active' phrasing.

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