jules_list_sources

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 the read-only listing nature, the cross-account aggregation behavior, and the presence of pagination and AIP-160 filtering. It does not detail auth requirements or exact response structure, but for a list operation the disclosed behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 entire description is one tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and scope, then appends the extra capabilities it supports. Every clause adds value.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient: an agent can call it with no arguments and understand what it returns at a high level. However, because there is no output schema, it would be stronger if it stated the exact shape of the returned source list rather than only mentioning branch metadata.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (filter, page_size, page_token). The description only references AIP-160 filtering and pagination at a high level, adding no new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. This matches the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('connected GitHub repositories and sources'), and a clear scope ('across all configured Google Jules accounts'). It also lists distinctive features (branch metadata, pagination, AIP-160 filters) that distinguish it from sibling tools like jules_get_source or jules_list_sessions.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when an agent needs an aggregate listing of GitHub sources across all configured accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'all ... across all configured accounts' framing provides enough contextual guidance to differentiate it from single-source tools.

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