List Jules Sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by disclosing the prerequisite of installing the GitHub app, which directly impacts whether repositories will appear. Yet it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies). This is some behavioral context, but not comprehensive.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second sentence adds a necessary prerequisite. No word is wasted, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the key prerequisite. It could be slightly more complete by explaining what the response contains, but the phrase 'List all GitHub repositories' implies the output. The schema already covers parameter details, so the description is sufficient for most use cases.

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% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (filter, pageSize, pageToken). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 tool's function: 'List all GitHub repositories connected to Jules.' The verb 'list' plus the resource ('GitHub repositories') makes the purpose explicit. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'jules_get_source' by indicating it lists all sources rather than retrieving a single one.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'You must install the Jules GitHub app at https://jules.google.com before repositories appear here.' This guides when the tool will be useful (after installation) and implies it should not be used expecting repositories without the app. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jules_get_source'.

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