get_build_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool 'returns' status information and lists specific return fields, implying a read-only operation. However, it omits details about potential delays, caching, authentication, or error conditions that might be relevant for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and the included output fields. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what the response contains (last build result, timestamp, duration). It could slightly benefit from mentioning possible build result values or status meanings, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 fully documents the single optional 'job' parameter with a clear default and description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies without any need for compensation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the documentation CI/CD build pipeline in Jenkins'. It also lists the key output fields (build result, timestamp, duration), which makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinctly different from the sibling content tools.

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 implies usage context (checking build status) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools are clearly different in domain, so the lack of explicit guidance is not critical, but it is still a gap.

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