jules_get_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the field list tells the agent what to expect in terms of content. It does not mention rate limits or failure behavior, but for a simple getter the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the payload in a compact colon-separated enumeration. Every word adds value and there is no repetition of schema information.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter getter with no output schema, the field list gives an agent enough information to know what will be returned. It could still explicitly note that the operation is read-only and describe not-found behavior, but the core context is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single session_id parameter, including format examples. The description adds little beyond reusing the phrase 'session ID' and does not introduce defaults, constraints, or dependency semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('a specific session ID'), then enumerates the exact details returned: status, PR URL, git patch diff, Jules Web URL, failure reason, and activity timeline. It distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by focusing on one session, though it does not explicitly separate itself from jules_get_patch or jules_get_activity.

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 tool is for fetching the full detail bundle for one session, which provides clear context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, such as jules_get_patch for patch-only needs or jules_list_sessions for browsing multiple sessions.

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