jules_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a message is sent to an active session, without explaining whether the session must be waiting for input, whether sending mutates session state, or what happens if the session is inactive.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes meaning: the action, the content, and the target.

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?

The core semantics for a simple two-parameter send tool are covered, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. However, the description leaves behavioral edge cases unexplained, such as session liveness requirements and the relationship to jules_approve_plan.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'active Jules session' to session_id and 'feedback, an answer, or additional instructions' to message, but it does not explain how to obtain a valid session_id or message formatting expectations. The parameter names are self-evident, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 ('Send') with a clear target ('active Jules session') and enumerates the kinds of content ('feedback, an answer, or additional instructions'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like jules_start, jules_status, or jules_result.

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 phrase 'to an active Jules session' implies this should be used only after a session is running, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or route to alternatives such as jules_approve_plan for plan approvals.

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