jenkins_get_last_build

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 doesn't describe what information is returned (beyond 'information'), whether the read is safe, whether it throws on missing builds, or what the response structure looks like. Given there's an output schema, some weight is offset, but the description itself is thin on 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 brief and direct, with no fluff. However, it reads more like a docstring skeleton than a purpose-crafted tool description—the Args section is auto-generated style rather than front-loaded value. It's concise but doesn't use the space to add differentiating or behavioral detail.

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 relatively simple get operation with an output schema and a defaulted parameter, the description covers the basic purpose. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, key context is missing: what fields the build info returns, whether 'last build' means most recent by number regardless of status, and how this relates to the two sibling 'last successful/failed build' tools. It's minimally viable but not complete for an agent to select this over closely-related siblings.

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%. The description lists 'job_name' and 'session_name' as parameters with a one-word gloss each ('Full job name', 'Jenkins session to use'), which essentially restates the schema properties without adding meaningful semantics. No format, naming conventions, defaults behavior, or constraints are explained beyond what the schema already shows.

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 the tool gets information about the last build of a job, with a clear verb (get) and resource (last build of a job). This is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like jenkins_get_last_successful_build and jenkins_get_last_failed_build, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate which 'last build' (successful/failed/all) it retrieves. This could be confusing given those siblings exist.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like jenkins_get_last_successful_build, jenkins_get_last_failed_build, and jenkins_get_build_info, it would be valuable to clarify whether this returns the most recent build regardless of status. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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