list_sessions

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 'pagination support', which is useful context, but fails to describe other key behaviors such as what 'recent' means (e.g., time frame), whether the list is ordered, what permissions are required, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 ('List recent Jules sessions') and adds a key behavioral trait ('with pagination support'). There is no wasted language, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 a list operation with pagination, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, authentication needs, or how 'recent' is defined. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for both parameters ('pageSize' and 'pageToken'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 ('List') and resource ('recent Jules sessions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'jules_list_sessions', which appears to be a very similar tool, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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 that might overlap (e.g., 'jules_list_sessions'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The mention of 'pagination support' hints at usage for large datasets but doesn't clarify tool selection.

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