jenkins_add_job_to_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a mutating operation (adding a job to a view), but the description doesn't state whether a valid Jenkins connection is required, whether the job must already exist in Jenkins, whether the operation can overwrite/duplicate, or what the return value indicates. This mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs more behavioral context.

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 concise at one sentence plus a compact parameter list. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the parameter descriptors add marginal value since they duplicate the schema titles.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is under-specified. There's an output schema noted, which could convey return format, but the description doesn't explain what success/failure looks like, whether the connection needs establishing first, or any prerequisites. Among ~50 Jenkins sibling tools, this one's relationship to jenkins_connect, jenkins_get_view, and job management tools is not clarified.

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. The description does restate each parameter's purpose ('View name', 'Job name to add to the view', 'Jenkins session to use'), but these merely mirror the schema titles. Session_name is noted as a session identifier, but there's no guidance on what format/values are valid or how session_name relates to jenkins_connect sessions.

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+object ('Add a job to an existing view'), which clearly communicates what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like jenkins_create_view and jenkins_get_view since the focus is on adding jobs to views, not managing views themselves. The purpose is clear though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 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 does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that the view must already exist (evidenced by 'existing view'), require prior connection via jenkins_connect, or note error handling if the job/view doesn't exist. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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