jules_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only mentions the action without disclosing side effects, error behavior, or requirements (e.g., what happens if session is inactive, whether it's fire-and-forget, authentication needs). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted wording 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 tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, error handling, or operational details. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves key usage questions unanswered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning of 'prompt' beyond 'feedback/additional instructions' and does not clarify 'session_id' format or expectations. No examples or constraints are provided.

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 action (send) and the resource (message to a session), and specifies the purpose (feedback/additional instructions). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_session or approve_plan, but does not explicitly differentiate itself, so it misses the top score.

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?

It implies the session must be active, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The context is inferred from 'active session' rather than stated.

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