Get Jules Session

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond this by detailing the return contents (state, progress, source context, PR outputs) and explaining the effect of the response_format parameter. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by well-structured Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no waste or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns, how to call it, and shows an example. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 both parameters already fully described, including an enum for response_format. The description's parameter list largely duplicates the schema, adding only an example value, so it does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'details of a specific coding session', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sessions and get_activity. The verb+resource combination makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when a specific session ID is known and details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives such as jules_list_sessions for listing all sessions. Guidance is present but only implied, not directly articulated.

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