jules_create_and_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the combined action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention what 'completion' means (e.g., success/failure states), whether this is a blocking/long-running operation, potential timeouts beyond the parameter, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with significant behavioral implications, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose and key behavioral aspect (waiting).

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'Jules session' is, what 'completion' entails, what the tool returns, or error scenarios. For a tool that combines creation and waiting—likely involving significant backend processing—this leaves too many contextual 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 description coverage is 75% (6 of 8 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'waitForCompletion' and 'timeoutMs'). It only implies the tool uses these parameters for the create-and-wait operation.

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 specific action: 'Creates a Jules session AND waits for it to complete in a single operation.' It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'jules_create_session' (which only creates) and 'jules_wait_for_completion' (which only waits), making the combined functionality unambiguous.

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 need both creation and waiting in one step. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you want to create without waiting) or name specific alternatives like 'jules_create_session' followed by 'jules_wait_for_completion', leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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