jules_create_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'asynchronous coding task', hinting at non-blocking behavior, but lacks critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, what 'session' entails (e.g., duration, resource usage), or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves complex operations.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by stating the action and goal clearly, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity implied by 'asynchronous coding task' and 6 parameters, with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'session' is, how results are accessed, or behavioral traits like side effects, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 high (83%), with clear descriptions for most parameters like 'prompt' and 'repo'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate for the minor coverage gap but doesn't degrade the existing clarity.

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 action ('Creates a new Jules session') and the purpose ('to perform an asynchronous coding task'), which is specific and distinguishes it from non-Jules session tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_session' or 'jules_create_and_wait', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_session', 'jules_create_and_wait', and 'jules_quick_task' available, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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