List Connected Sources

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: sources are GitHub repos connected via the web interface, returns include owner/repo, public/private status, and branches, and supports pagination and filtering. No contradiction with 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 intro, Args, Returns, and Examples. Every section serves a purpose without repetition or fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and provides just enough detail to operate the tool.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (owner/repo, public/private, branches) and covers all four parameters, including defaults and allowed values. It is fully self-contained for a list tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete examples for the filter expression ('name=sources/github-myorg-myrepo') and clarifies that no params are needed for listing all sources. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List all repository sources connected to Jules.' It explains what sources are (GitHub repositories) and distinguishes itself from siblings like jules_get_source by focusing on listing all rather than retrieving a single source.

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 provides clear context and examples for when to use the tool: listing all repos with no params or filtering by name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like jules_get_source, but the examples imply the correct usage for broad listing vs filtered lookup.

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