jules_pool_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read/check, and it specifies exactly which behavioral aspects are inspected (health, quota ledger, counts, capacity). It stops short of describing side effects or authentication needs, but for a status tool the non-mutating behavior is strongly implied.

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 delivers a complete, front-loaded description without any filler. The list of inspected dimensions is compact and every phrase adds 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema status tool, the description provides the essential context: the tool's scope (all Google accounts) and the expected content (health, quota ledger, counts, capacity). An agent has enough information to select and invoke it appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the default baseline of 4 applies. The description adds semantic value by explaining what the status output refers to, even though there are no parameters to clarify.

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 specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('pool status across all Google accounts'), then enumerates the concrete data dimensions: health, rolling 24-hour quota ledger, active vs completed counts, and remaining capacity. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that target events, tasks, sessions, or PRs.

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 scope is made clear: this is a pool-wide monitoring/status check across all Google accounts, which is a distinct context from the sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is self-evident and no sibling appears to cover the same function.

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