jules_auto_nudge_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior: it targets all sessions in AWAITING_USER_FEEDBACK and sends them an unblocking directive. However, it omits potential side effects, idempotency, whether it can overwhelm sessions, or what happens when no sessions are stuck.

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 one dense, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Autonomous unblocker') and the scope ('across the entire pool') without any filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to understand the operation. However, because it is a bulk action with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from more guidance on intended use, risks of nudging all sessions, and expected results.

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 already documents the single optional custom_instruction parameter with a default value, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it automatically finds all sessions stuck in AWAITING_USER_FEEDBACK across the entire pool and sends a pre-emptive unblocking directive. It clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the autonomous, pool-wide scope rather than single-session or manual interactions.

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 the use case: unblock all stuck sessions without manual CLI nudging. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar siblings like jules_reply_feedback, nor does it provide exclusions such as 'use only when many sessions are stuck' or 'avoid when human review is required.'

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