List Stuck Jules Sessions

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that pagination is handled automatically, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe other potential behaviors like rate limits or response characteristics. This is a moderate but not comprehensive disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that communicates the core purpose and key behavior without any unnecessary words 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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description defines the term 'stuck', explains the tool's scope, and mentions automatic pagination. It is mostly complete, though it could briefly mention what the response contains or compare with sibling list tools.

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?

The only parameter (pageSize) is fully documented in the schema with a default and description. The description's mention of automatic pagination adds mild context but does not significantly enhance the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('sessions') with a clear scope ('waiting for plan approval or user feedback'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jules_list_sessions and jules_wait_for_session.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to list sessions stuck in waiting states. It also notes automatic pagination. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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