jules_wait_for_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and largely meets it: it discloses that the call blocks, polls until a terminal/paused state or timeout, and returns on specific states. The main gap is the unspecified timeout outcome (error vs. current-state return), but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by return conditions and use case. No filler or repetition.

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 polling tool, the description covers the what, the when, and the return-triggering states. The output schema exists to explain return values. Missing timeout behavior and default-value callouts are the main omissions, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description's language gives meaning to the key parameters: 'timeout' maps to timeout_seconds, 'Poll' maps to poll_interval_seconds, and 'a Jules session' maps to session_id. It doesn't explicitly document each parameter or defaults, so it partially compensates but leaves some work to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Poll a Jules session') and defines the completion condition ('until it stops actively running or until timeout'). It also enumerates the exact session states that cause the method to return (COMPLETED, FAILED, PAUSED, AWAITING_PLAN_APPROVAL, AWAITING_USER_FEEDBACK), clearly distinguishing it from sibling get/list/snapshot tools.

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 explicitly states the intended usage context: 'useful after creating a task when the caller wants a bounded wait instead of manual polling.' This tells an agent when to choose this tool over manual polling, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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