jenkins_get_job_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It's a read operation (retrieving config), but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or side-effect-free. It also doesn't mention auth requirements, error cases, or what happens if the job doesn't exist. An output schema exists which may convey return format, but behavioral safety isn't disclosed.

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?

Description is brief and efficient, with purpose stated up front followed by an args summary. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly padded by the args section that partially overlaps with the schema, but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format burden is reduced. With 2 parameters and a well-defined read operation, the description covers the essentials. However, as a read-only config retrieval tool with no annotations, it could benefit from noting there's no side effect and clarifying how it differs from related sibling tools. Adequate but not exemplary.

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 lists both parameters (job_name: full job name, session_name: Jenkins session to use) in the args section, adding 'full' to job_name and clarifying session_name's role. However, 'session_name' being optional with a 'default' default value isn't clarified — no mention it can be omitted safely.

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?

Description clearly states it gets a job's XML configuration (config.xml), with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jenkins_update_job_config (which modifies config) and jenkins_get_job (which gets job metadata), though it doesn't explicitly name the distinction.

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?

Description says it's useful for understanding job setup, modifying, or duplicating configurations, which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with jenkins_update_job_config or jenkins_get_job, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The usage context is clear for an experienced user but lacks explicit guidance.

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