jules_list_sessions

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the cross-account aggregation scope ('all pooled Google accounts') and the list/filter nature, which implies a read-only operation. It doesn't disclose pagination semantics beyond the token, sort order, or potential for large result sets, so it stays at the minimum viable level.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the main action and scope before enumerating the filter dimensions. Every phrase 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?

The description is adequate for a list/filter tool whose five optional parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior across accounts, or filter combination semantics. For a moderate-complexity tool this is a visible gap, so 3 rather than higher.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond paraphrasing the filter categories; all detail is already in the input schema. It doesn't compensate beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to.

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 names a concrete verb ('List') and resource ('coding sessions'), and adds a distinguishing scope: 'across all pooled Google accounts' and specific filter dimensions. It separates this from siblings like jules_get_session (single session) and jules_list_activities without naming them, though it doesn't explicitly invoke a sibling.

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 when to use it—whenever you need to list or filter coding sessions across accounts—but gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't mention that jules_get_session should be used for a single session or jules_list_activities for activity logs. The guidance is implied, not stated.

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