jenkins_get_executor_status

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 says the tool shows busy executors and what they're running, but doesn't mention whether it requires an active connection, the format of the output, whether it fails gracefully on disconnected sessions, or any rate-limit concerns. For a read-only diagnostic tool, the safety profile is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 compact at three lines of substantive content. It front-loads the core purpose ('Show executor status across all nodes') then elaborates with one detail line before the Args. No redundant phrasing or filler. Every sentence earns its place, though the Args section merely restates the parameter.

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 straightforward (single parameter, no nested objects, has output schema), so the bar for completeness is lower. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description alone must convey usage context. It adequately conveys the read-only nature and scope (all nodes), and the output schema exists to explain return values. This is adequate for a simple diagnostic tool but could note the session prerequisite.

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?

With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides nothing beyond the parameter name and default. The description mentions 'session_name: Jenkins session to use' in Args, which adds some semantic meaning (that it's a session selector), but doesn't explain what a session is, how sessions are established, or what happens if the named session doesn't exist. The baseline of 3 applies since the single parameter is fairly self-explanatory.

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 shows executor status across all nodes and details which executors are busy and what they're running. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like jenkins_get_queue or jenkins_list_nodes, which deal with related but different resources.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention differences from related tools like jenkins_get_node_info or jenkins_get_queue. The usage context is implied by the name and brief description but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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