jules_wait_for_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral details. It mentions waiting behavior but doesn't specify what happens during the wait (e.g., polling, blocking), error conditions (e.g., timeout handling), or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves asynchronous operations and timeouts.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication that earns its place.

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 of waiting for an asynchronous plan generation with timeout handling, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, and how it fits with sibling tools, 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 100%, providing basic parameter documentation. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how 'sessionId' relates to Jules sessions or what typical 'timeoutMs' values might be. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra context is given.

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 ('waits for') and resource ('Jules to generate a plan for a session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jules_get_session_plan' or 'jules_wait_for_completion', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific waiting tool versus others.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a session must be in a specific state), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'jules_wait_for_completion' or 'jules_get_session_plan', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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