jules_get_plan

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 output's nature (structured, numbered execution plan) and provenance (generated by Jules). However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens when no plan exists, or whether any side effects occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately identifies the action, the resource, and the scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned and for which session. It does not cover error cases or format details beyond 'structured, numbered,' but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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%, and the single parameter session_id is already described as 'The session ID.' The description adds only that the plan belongs to that session, which is mild extra context. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Extract') and a specific resource ('structured, numbered step-by-step execution plan generated by Jules for a session'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jules_get_session or jules_get_activity, which retrieve different session-related information.

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 'for a session' gives clear retrieval context, indicating this is the tool to use when the structured plan for a session is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it over obvious siblings like jules_check_events or jules_list_activities.

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