Get Source Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what information will be returned (owner, visibility, default branch, all branches) and the output format options. It does not contradict the 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 well-structured with an intro, Args section, Returns section, and Example. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given only two parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It explains parameters, return structure, and provides an example. No critical information needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by providing a concrete example of sourceId format ('github-owner-repo'), explaining the response_format enum in plain language, and clearly listing the returned fields for both parameters.

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 clearly states the tool 'Gets details of a specific repository source' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like jules_list_sources by focusing on a single, specific source and enumerating the detailed information returned (owner, name, visibility, branches).

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 gives clear context: it is for retrieving full details of a specific connected GitHub repository. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool for listing all sources. The sibling list implies such a tool exists, but the description could have been more explicit.

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