create_session_from_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool fetches issue details and creates a session with auto-PR, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it creates a branch, modifies the issue, or what 'auto-PR' entails). This is moderate transparency but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and key action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain behavior and return value. It explains the action but omits what the session creation returns, any side effects, or prerequisites. This is adequate for a simple 3-parameter tool but leaves gaps.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable since the schema already documents the parameters.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Jules session from a GitHub issue.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_session by specifying the source (GitHub issue) and the auto-PR feature.

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 usage: when you want to turn a GitHub issue into a Jules session with auto-PR. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, such as using create_session for non-issue-based sessions.

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