jules_send_feedback

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the semantic effect of the call — the text steers/guides an in-progress agent — and implies an active-session precondition. But it says nothing about whether the message queues, interrupts, is persisted, is reversible, or what errors occur if the session has ended.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity means it leans entirely on other fields for completeness.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits what a successful send returns or confirms, whether the session must be in a particular state, and any failure modes. The two-parameter schema is documented, but the behavioral envelope an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% for both required parameters (taskId, message) and their descriptions are adequate. The tool description adds no format, length, or token-limit guidance for the message or the taskId shape, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (sends) and resource (steering message/guidance to a Jules coding session), which is a clear, distinct action versus siblings like jules_approve_plan or jules_get_diff. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 phrase 'ongoing Jules coding session' implies the tool is only usable while a session is active, which is useful contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites such as whether the session must be awaiting input, and no routing to alternatives like jules_approve_plan.

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