jules_get_patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Extract' reasonably signals a read-only operation and the description names the expected outputs, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or describe behavior when the session is not completed.

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?

A single 13-word sentence conveys action, resource, and precondition with no filler. Every element earns its place and the key output is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the input precondition and the main return content. It does not detail error conditions or the exact return envelope, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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% with a simple session_id description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context beyond the schema by specifying the session must be completed and that the tool returns a cleaned patch plus commit message, which helps interpret valid inputs.

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 names a specific action ('Extract'), a concrete resource ('clean git unidiff patch and suggested commit message'), and a source ('completed session'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like jules_apply_patch, jules_verify_patch, and jules_get_session.

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?

It implies the tool is meant for sessions that have already completed, which is a useful usage condition, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The guidance is mostly implied rather than spelled out.

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