Wait for Jules Session to Complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool polls, tracks progress, emits progress notifications, returns a unified payload with final state/details, and is bounded by a wait limit to prevent timeouts. This gives the agent a clear picture of what happens without repeating annotation data.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, opens with the core purpose, and every clause adds value (tracks progress, emits notifications, returns payload, bounded wait). There is zero redundancy or filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return payload (unified payload with final state, summary, and PR details) and mentions timeout prevention. It doesn't cover error handling or specific edge cases, but for a wait/poll tool this is sufficient. The presence of siblings like jules_get_status might imply more granular reads, but the description is complete enough for successful invocation.

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% for the three parameters (sessionId, maxWaitSeconds, includeActivities). The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning—it only hints at the wait limit ('bounded by a wait limit') and the unified payload, but doesn't elaborate on how includeActivities affects output. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description doesn't exceed that.

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's purpose: to wait/poll for a Jules session to complete. It uses a specific verb ('wait/poll') and resource ('Jules session'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like jules_execute_and_wait by focusing solely on waiting for an existing session rather than executing a new one.

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 when to use this tool: when you have a session ID and need to wait for its completion. It mentions it automatically tracks progress and emits notifications, suggesting it's more comprehensive than simple polling. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like jules_get_status, though the context of 'wait/poll' provides clear usage context.

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