jules_recipe_dispatch

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention that auto_create_pr defaults to true, that wait_for_completion controls synchronous blocking, that a GitHub PR may be created, or what side effects occur on the source repository. Phrases like 'Eliminates prompt ambiguity' and 'ensures optimal output quality' are promotional rather than behaviorally informative.

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 short and front-loaded with the verb and examples, but the second sentence ('Eliminates prompt ambiguity and ensures optimal output quality') is subjective filler that does not add operational value. It is compact yet not 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?

For a tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It omits crucial context such as the default PR-creation behavior, whether the call blocks, what artifacts or results are produced, and how this differs from sibling dispatch tools. An agent would lack the information needed to safely invoke it in a real workflow.

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 repeats the recipe names already documented in the schema but adds no new operational meaning about source, target_path, or the boolean flags. It neither compensates for gaps nor contradicts 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 uses a clear verb-resource pair: 'Dispatch a standardized... chore recipe' with concrete examples like 'scaffold-unit-test' and 'add-strict-types'. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core job, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as jules_dispatch_and_wait or jules_batch_dispatch.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no conditions. The recipe examples imply some use cases, but the tool's relationship to jules_dispatch_and_wait, jules_batch_dispatch, or jules_queue_tasks is never addressed, leaving selection to inference.

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