List Jules Sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context about pagination behavior (pageToken, nextPageToken) and return fields (ID, title, state, timestamps), going beyond the basic annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, an Args block, a Returns block, and examples. It is concise with no fluff, though the Args block somewhat duplicates the schema. The examples and return details earn their place, making it an efficient reference.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape (fields and nextPageToken) and pagination. It does not discuss error cases or rate limits, but these are not essential given the simple read-only nature and strong annotations. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces this with an Args block and adds concrete usage examples (e.g., 'no params needed' and 'use pageToken from previous response'). These examples clarify practical usage beyond the schema's dry descriptions.

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 begins with 'List all coding sessions for the authenticated user,' which clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (coding sessions) with scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_session (singular) and list_activities/list_sources (different resource types).

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 provides examples for default usage and pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jules_get_session or jules_list_activities. There are no exclusions or comparison to sibling tools, leaving selection guidance implied rather than explicit.

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