Send Message to Jules Session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a key behavioral trait: Jules will respond in the next activity, indicating asynchronous behavior. However, it doesn't disclose error conditions, side effects, or authentication requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful next steps. No wasted words.

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 message-sending tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the session context, and where to see the response. It doesn't elaborate on failure modes, but that's acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already has 100% coverage for both parameters (sessionId and message), so the description doesn't add significant semantic value. It reinforces that the message is a follow-up and requires a sessionId, but provides no extra format or constraint details 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 clearly states the tool sends a follow-up message or instruction to a running Jules session, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jules_list_activities or jules_get_status by focusing on the act of sending a message to an existing 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 gives context that it's for running sessions and directs the user to check the response via jules_list_activities or jules_get_status. It implies the use case of sending follow-up messages but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like jules_approve_plan or state prerequisites beyond 'running'.

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