jenkins_get_build_log

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 read-only operation (safe), which is consistent with sibling naming, but the description doesn't state this explicitly. It also doesn't disclose the return type/format beyond 'console text output,' whether logs are paginated, truncated at any length, or whether start_line enables incremental fetch (implied but not stated as behavior).

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 reasonably concise with a clear structure: a one-line purpose statement, a return-value line, then an Args section mapping each param. No wasted sentences. It could be slightly tighter but is efficiently organized for an agent to parse.

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?

This is a read-only log tool with 4 params (1 required), 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present. Since the output schema exists, the return format is covered there. However, the description is thin on behavioral details: no mention of progressive/large-log handling implications, no clarity on capacity limits, no note that this is a safe read operation, and session_name is under-explained. The start_line 'bytes' semantics are unusual and would benefit from more explanation.

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 does add meaning for most params: job_name='Full job name', build_number='0 = last build', start_line='Start offset in bytes for progressive output (default: 0 = from beginning)', session_name='Jenkins session to use'. However, session_name is only described as 'Jenkins session to use' - no explanation of what a session is or when/whether it's needed, which is a gap for a non-obvious parameter. start_line being in 'bytes' is useful though unusual.

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 'Get console output (build log) for a specific build' - a specific verb (get) + resource (build log). It distinguishes from siblings like jenkins_get_node_log (node log vs build log), jenkins_get_build_info (metadata vs console output), and jenkins_get_last_build. The 'Returns the full console text output of the build' line reinforces the purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with jenkins_get_build_info which would help differentiation.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. For a log retrieval tool, it doesn't clarify when to use start_line progressive retrieval vs full fetch, or when a session_name is needed. Context like rate limits or large-log handling would help. While the start_line param hints at progressive use, no explicit usage scenarios are given.

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