jules_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only states that the tool returns state and metadata. It does not mention what happens for invalid sessions, access requirements, whether the session must be active, or any rate/blocking behavior, so the agent has no information beyond the basic 'get' action.

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 sentence that immediately states the verb and object with no filler or redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one required parameter and fully earns its place.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to elaborate on the return format. However, it is incomplete because it leaves unanswered how the session_id should be obtained and does not delineate how 'state and metadata' differs from the output of jules_activity or jules_result, which an agent would need to select and invoke correctly.

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 was expected to compensate for the session_id parameter, but it does not mention the parameter at all. The name 'session_id' is self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify its format or where to obtain it (e.g., from jules_start or jules_list_sessions), adding no 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 the specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource as a Jules session's current state and metadata, which is enough to distinguish it from tools like jules_list_sessions or jules_result. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with jules_activity, which might also involve state-related information, so it misses the top score.

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 is purely functional and offers no guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings like jules_activity or jules_result, nor when it should not be used. All seven sibling tools are named in context, but the description never references them, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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