jules_get_session_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Gets' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what happens with invalid session IDs, or the format/structure of the returned execution plan. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools that might overlap in functionality, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what an 'execution plan' contains, how it differs from other session information retrievable via sibling tools, or what the return format looks like. For a tool in this context, more contextual information is needed.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'sessionId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 ('Gets') and target resource ('execution plan from a Jules session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_session_state' or 'jules_get_session_summary' that might retrieve related session information, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 multiple sibling tools like 'get_session_state', 'jules_get_session_summary', and 'jules_get_session' that might retrieve overlapping session information, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool or when it's the appropriate choice.

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