jules_verify_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly conveys a non-mutating dry-run, the exact command executed, and the meaning of success (0 conflicts). It does not describe the result format or failure modes, but the core side-effect and operation behavior are 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?

One dense sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Dry-run preflight check') before technical detail. It is slightly long because of the quoted git command, but every part contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 two-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, operation, preconditions, and non-destructive nature. The main missing piece is exactly how the verification result is returned, but this is enough 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%, and both parameters already have clear meanings (session_id containing the patch, repo_path as absolute local path). The description adds minor contextual framing ('completed session', 'local workspace') but no substantive new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a precise verb ('verify') on a specific resource (a completed session's git patch) and names the concrete mechanism ('git apply --check --3way'). The 'Dry-run preflight check' framing clearly separates it from apply-or-write siblings, so an agent can tell what this tool does.

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 gives clear usage context: use this before creating branches or writing files, to confirm a patch will apply cleanly. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., jules_apply_patch) or list when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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