jules_get_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is a read operation ('Retrieve') and lists output categories, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. This is basic transparency but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the primary returned data. Every word is informative and no redundant repetition occurs.

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 retrieval tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It lacks examples or notes on edge cases, but the scope is straightforward and the sibling context does not require deeper disambiguation.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both session_id and account_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter explanation beyond implying session_id identifies the specific session, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'specific Jules session', enumerating what is fetched (status, outputs, PR links, metadata). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on a single session rather than listing multiple.

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 'for a specific Jules session' implies when to use this tool versus listing sessions, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. No guidance is provided relative to siblings like jules_get_diff or jules_list_activities.

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