jules_dispatch_and_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that the call blocks/wait, and that it automatically injects architectural invariants, sandbox test runner commands, and anti-pause directives - useful non-obvious behavior. It does not cover failure or output behavior, so not a 5.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the behavioral note second. Every sentence 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?

Core dispatch/wait semantics and automatic injections are covered and all parameters are schema-documented, but with no output schema the description leaves the return value/result shape undisclosed and does not mention error/timeout outcomes; adequate but incomplete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 immediately states the specific action ('Create a new Jules coding task') plus the distinctive synchronous behavior ('immediately block/wait for it in a single MCP tool call'), which clearly separates it from siblings like jules_create_task and jules_wait_for_task.

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 phrase 'in a single MCP tool call' gives the agent a clear use context: use this when a combined dispatch-and-wait is wanted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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