jules_reply_feedback

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

The description clearly states the core action: sending a message directly to a session. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether sending resumes the session, whether it can be called multiple times, or what error/response behavior to expect.

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?

One efficient sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and the message-type list earns its place by clarifying exactly what the tool is for.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It could mention post-conditions, but the target context and purpose are clear.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes both parameters sufficiently. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Send'), names the resource ('in-progress or paused session'), and enumerates the message types (feedback, clarification, steering). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that check events, create tasks, or approve plans.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when sending user feedback, unblocking a clarification, or providing follow-up steering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the target session state is specified.

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