jenkins_get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states what the tool returns (configuration, health, last builds, parameters) but doesn't disclose aspects like required permissions, whether the job must exist or error behavior if not found, or whether this is a read-only operation. A read operation implies no side effects but is 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 ~50 words, front-loads the main purpose in the first line, and uses a clean Args section. No wasted sentences. It could be slightly more informative without bloating, but as structured it's economical.

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?

There is an output schema, so return format isn't required. However, with no annotations and only 0% param schema coverage, the description is the only disclosure vehicle. For a 'get details' tool about a job, it covers purpose and one param's format well but leaves the second param and behavioral details (auth needs, existence errors) undocumented. Adequate but with notable gaps for a job-inspection tool.

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 Args section does add value for job_name ('use 'folder/job-name' for jobs in folders'), which is genuinely helpful syntax guidance. However, session_name gets no explanation beyond its name, and the description doesn't clarify formats or constraints. Since there are only 2 params and one gets useful extra semantics, a 3 is fair but the job_name guidance is the only real value-add.

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 uses a clear verb+resource pattern ('Get detailed information about a specific Jenkins job') and enumerates the content ('configuration, health, last builds, parameters, and more'). It distinguishes adequately from siblings like jenkins_get_build_info (which targets builds, not jobs) and jenkins_get_job_config (which is narrower, config-only). However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling differentiators.

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 usage context (read job details) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (get_job_config, get_build_info, etc.), explicit guidance on when to choose this over one of those would help. The Args section gives parameter context but no usage constraints.

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