get_build_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the kind of data returned (result, timestamp, duration, parameters, git), which helps set expectations. However, it does not mention side-effect profile, return format, or error behavior, and it does not explicitly say it is a safe read-only operation.

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 states the core purpose first and then compactly lists the included information categories. Every word 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 getter with two clearly named required parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the return scope but omits usage heuristics and does not distinguish itself from the many build-related sibling tools, especially the similarly scoped get_last_successful_build and the more specific get_build_log.

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 0%, and the description does not explain job_name or build_number beyond the phrase 'a specific build.' The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful detail about how to identify the build, such as the meaning or format of build_number.

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 clear verb+resource: it returns 'full info about a specific build' and enumerates the content areas (result, timestamp, duration, parameters, git). It is distinct from list-style siblings because it targets a single build, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like get_build_log or get_last_successful_build.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_build_log, get_last_successful_build, or get_job_info. The description does not provide context, exclusions, or preference conditions.

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