jules_list_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication scope ('connected to the authenticated Jules account'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not describe pagination behavior, or mention any potential side effects. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no extraneous information or verbosity; every word contributes to clarity.

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 with an output schema that defines return structure, so that is covered. However, the description does not explain pagination (despite having pagination params), nor does it mention any limitations or edge cases. For a list tool, this is moderately complete but missing useful context that an agent could leverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention page_size or page_token at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning from names alone. The names are somewhat self-explanatory (pagination), but no explicit explanation of default behavior or token usage is provided, which is a notable gap given the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action (List), a clear resource (GitHub repositories/sources), and a scope (connected to the authenticated Jules account). It effectively differentiates from sibling jules_get_source (which retrieves a single source) and jules_list_sessions (which lists sessions, not 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of conditions like 'use this to enumerate all sources' or 'if you need a specific source, use jules_get_source instead.' The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling set.

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