Check the current Jules session with minimal output

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact one-letter return codes and their meanings, plus the auto-resolve behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 very short and every sentence contributes: it states the tool's token-saving purpose, defines its output codes, and explains how to target the session. There is 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?

For a lightweight status-check tool, the description explains the output codes and input options well, which is especially important since there is no output schema. It could go slightly further by mentioning when to prefer richer siblings such as jules_monitor_session, but the essentials are covered.

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 schema already documents repo, owner, branch, and session_id. The description confirms the relationship between session_id and owner/repo, but this is also present in the schema and adds little beyond it.

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 states a specific action ('token-saving status check'), identifies the resource ('current Jules session'), and explains the return format with one-letter codes Q/C/F/N. The 'minimal output' framing in the title and description distinguishes it from richer sibling tools like jules_get_session or jules_monitor_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 gives clear input guidance: provide session_id directly, or use owner/repo to auto-resolve the current project session. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name an alternative like jules_monitor_session, but the token-saving framing makes the intended lightweight status-check use case clear.

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