jules_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys that the tool sends a message and requires an ongoing session, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether the message is stored/visible to the session. The verb 'send' provides basic transparency, but no deeper behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it avoids unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the essential action and resource, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, or constraints beyond 'ongoing' (e.g., session must be active, message length limits). Given the tool's simplicity and good schema coverage, this is minimally viable but not complete.

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%, with each parameter ('message', 'account_id', 'session_id') already meaningfully described. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Send') and resource ('follow-up guidance, feedback, or adjustments to an ongoing Jules session'), distinguishing it from list/get/approve/delegate siblings. However, it could more explicitly contrast with 'delegate_task' or 'approve_plan' to fully disambiguate.

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 implies usage for ongoing sessions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It does not mention that 'approve_plan' or 'delegate_task' should be used for other actions.

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