jules_check_events

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: real-time monitoring, all-account scope, and the kinds of outcomes surfaced. However, it does not clarify whether this is a long-polling stream or a snapshot query, whether it can block, what the output shape is, or any rate-limiting/resource implications of scanning 'all Google accounts in the pool.' This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, both information-dense. The first sentence states what the tool does and what it detects; the second gives the canonical use case. No filler, and the most important scope detail ('across all Google accounts') is front-loaded.

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 tool's high-level monitoring purpose and 100% schema coverage for its two optional params, the description covers most of what an agent needs to select and invoke it. The lack of an output schema makes the sparse return-format guidance slightly limiting, but the enumerated event categories partially compensate. An agent can reasonably tell this is a status-monitoring tool distinct from action-oriented siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description does not add param-level meaning, but it does provide context for interpreting the results: completed sessions include PR/patch details. Since the schema carries the param documentation load, a 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 identifies a specific verb ('monitors/detects'), a clear resource ('events across all Google accounts in the pool'), and enumerates the exact event categories it surfaces: stuck, awaiting approval, completed, or failed. It also frames itself as the primary harness tool for status questions, which distinguishes it from siblings like jules_wait_for_task or jules_list_sessions.

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 explicitly names the intended use case: answering 'Is Jules done? Is Jules stuck?' It positions itself as the primary harness tool, which gives an agent guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the primary-tool framing and status-oriented scope provide clear context.

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