create_coding_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'returns immediately with a session ID' and that progress should be monitored separately, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the session fails, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 core action and immediate return, followed by monitoring instructions. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It covers the basic purpose and monitoring aspect but lacks details on return values (beyond session ID), error cases, or side effects. This is adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('creates') and resource ('new Jules coding session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_session_status or manage_session. It specifies the immediate return of a session ID, which helps differentiate it from tools that might wait for completion.

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 by mentioning to 'monitor progress via jules://sessions/{id}/full resource', suggesting this tool initiates a task that runs asynchronously. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like schedule_recurring_task or manage_session, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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