jules_get_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. 'Get' makes the read-only nature evident, and the included content is stated, with no implication of mutation or side effects. It does not discuss authorization or error behavior, but those are less critical for a simple retrieval operation.

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 entire description is one concise, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the object, and the key included data without repetition or 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 output schema covers return values, but a critical gap remains: the source parameter's expected format is undefined, and there are no annotations conveying safety or scope. The tool is simple enough that this is barely adequate, but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not clarify what the 'source' parameter should contain (identifier, name, path, or repository). The word 'source' only echoes the tool name and does not give the agent enough information to construct a correct argument.

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 ('Get') with a singular resource ('one Jules source') and names included content (repository metadata, available branches). This clearly differentiates it from jules_list_sources, which would be the sibling for retrieving multiple sources.

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 singular 'one' and the mention of branches convey that this is the tool for fetching a single source in detail, which gives clear selection context. It does not explicitly name jules_list_sources as the alternative for enumerating all sources, so it stops short of a 5.

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