get_build_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does state the nature of the operation (returns status) and what outputs to expect, which is basic transparency. However, it omits potential edge cases such as behavior for nonexistent jobs, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and key output details without any fluff or repetition. It earns its place.

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 status-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value by naming the result, timestamp, and duration. It lacks usage context, but the overall complexity is low, making the description nearly 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 'job' parameter with a default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool returns the status of the documentation CI/CD build pipeline in Jenkins, listing specific output fields (last build result, timestamp, duration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with docs content or topics.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and purpose imply it is for build status, the description does not mention any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling set.

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