trigger_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a specific API method (buildWithParameters) but omits other behavioral traits critical for a mutating tool, such as whether the build runs asynchronously, required auth/permissions, or failure modes (e.g., job disabled). This is insufficient for a trigger 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The operation and a key conditional behavior are stated efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params) and an output schema exists, so return values are presumably covered. However, the description lacks essential operational context for a build trigger: asynchronous behavior, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., job must exist), and side effects. It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for an agent making informed invocation decisions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'parameters' triggers buildWithParameters, adding meaning to that parameter. However, job_name is left to the schema alone, and the format for parameters (e.g., key-value pairs) is only hinted at via the schema's additionalProperties. Partial compensation for low coverage.

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 'Trigger a Jenkins build' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling read/list tools (get_build, list_jobs, etc.) and other actions like stop_build. The mention of buildWithParameters adds implementation specificity without ambiguity.

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 use for triggering builds, which is clearly distinct from sibling tools focused on listing, getting, or stopping. It notes a conditional behavior for parameters but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. The context is clear, though no exclusions are provided.

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