Get Jules Source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific return contents ('branches and visibility') which goes beyond the schema, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention error behavior or permissions. However, the verb 'Get' strongly implies a safe, non-mutating operation, and the added detail about return contents provides useful transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and follows with a precise pointer to the alternative sibling tool. Every sentence contributes value with no unnecessary 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?

For a simple two-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description covers the key scope, return contents (branches, visibility), and the relationship to the sibling listing tool. It lacks explicit error behavior or prerequisites, but these are less critical for a straightforward read operation. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with both repoOwner and repoName fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get details for a single GitHub repository connected to Jules, including its branches and visibility.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'jules_list_sources' by focusing on a single repository rather than all.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance with 'Use jules_list_sources to see all connected repositories,' which tells the agent when to use this tool vs an alternative. It implies that this tool is for individual repository lookup, while the sibling handles listing all connected sources.

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