jules_stream_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Extract' and the focus on producing a markdown breakdown imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the output composition is clearly disclosed. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, permissions, streaming behavior, or error conditions, which would improve transparency without annotations.

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, information-dense sentence with the verb and primary deliverable front-loaded. Each clause earns its place by naming a distinct output section, and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool is simple: one required, fully documented parameter, and the description compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the expected markdown sections. The main gaps are the lack of explicit sibling differentiation and edge-case behavior, but for a single-parameter read-style tool the core context is well covered.

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%: the only parameter, session_id, is already described as 'The Jules session ID to inspect.' The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the session concept, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 operation ('Extract') and a concrete output resource ('structured markdown progress breakdown for a session'), then enumerates the included components: plan checklist, reasoning trail, files modified, and sandbox commands. This clearly separates it from generic session or plan tools among the siblings.

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 this tool: when a consolidated progress breakdown covering checklist, reasoning, files, and commands is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over related sibling tools like jules_get_session, jules_get_plan, or jules_inspect_bash_logs, and no exclusion criteria.

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