mcp-jenkins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches and returns a list, but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are filtered or paginated, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It's relatively concise with no redundant sentences, though the parameter explanations could be more informative. The front-loaded purpose statement is brief but could be more descriptive.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (indicating returns are documented elsewhere), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and differentiation from siblings, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 description lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'The pattern of the _class'), adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't clarify what 'pattern' means (e.g., regex, substring), acceptable formats, or how multiple parameters interact. Since schema coverage is low, the description compensates partially but not fully.

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 the tool 'Search job by specific field' which indicates a search operation on jobs, but it's vague about what 'specific field' means and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_all_jobs' or 'get_job_info'. The description provides a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_jobs' or 'get_job_info'. The description mentions searching 'by specific field' but doesn't clarify what contexts or criteria should trigger its use over other job-related tools in the sibling list.

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