jules_get_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation retrieves metadata, branches, default branch, and privacy status, which clarifies the read-only nature and the general scope of returned data. However, it does not describe response structure, possible errors for unknown sources, or any access prerequisites beyond 'connected.'

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core action and usefully enumerates the key returned categories. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name and no wasted words.

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 one-parameter getter, the description covers the operation and the scope of returned data, and the schema fully documents the only parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotation context, the agent lacks information about the result shape, failure behavior, or how this tool relates to jules_list_sources, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 already has 100% coverage, describing the 'source' parameter with a concrete example and the alternative of using a bare repo name. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming the target is a 'specific connected repository,' so the schema-heavy 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('source'), and lists concrete returned information: detailed metadata, branches, default branch, and privacy status. It explicitly scopes to 'a specific connected repository,' which distinguishes it from listing tools like jules_list_sources.

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 phrase 'for a specific connected repository' implies this tool should be used when the agent already has a source in mind and wants its details. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer jules_list_sources for discovery or name any exclusions, so usage guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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