Create and Wait for Jules Session

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

No annotations are provided; the description carries that weight and discloses progress tracking, automatic notifications, a bounded wait to prevent infinite pending, and the return bundling of final status, summary, and PR details. Lacks explicit permission or side-effect disclosure, but for this tool type the non-destructive hint is not necessary.

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?

A single, dense paragraph is packed with meaningful details—not a blank 'summary'; it carries exactly the substance of what is needed. No wasted words, although it is a long sentence it is acceptable given complexity.

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?

It has 9 parameters, a modest but non-trivial tool; the description covers lifecycle (creation, return, progress, output), wait limits, inputs, outputs; the output schema is absent, but the description of the returned payload (final state, summary, PR details) completes it.

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?

Input schema descriptions are rich: each property has an explanation, especially prompt details, defaults, max, etc. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema but the schema already provides near-total coverage of the parameters; to that score the description provides value in explaining the purpose of select parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Create a new Jules session') and resource ('wait/poll for its completion'), clearly distinguishing this from a basic creation tool by emphasizing the wait and return behavior.

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?

Provides concrete context (polling, progress notifications, PR creation, wait limits) and describes when it should be used (for synchronous task completion), but does not explicitly name competing/alternative tools or spell out when not to use it.

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