jenkins_get_last_failed_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't state what 'information' is returned, whether the build must exist (behavior when no failed build exists - e.g., error or empty response), or any session/authentication requirements. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral expectations beyond the literal terse statement.

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 efficient - one opening sentence plus a compact Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no filler. However, it could add useful behavioral context within the same space.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is thin for a build-status tool. It doesn't address: what happens if there's no failed build, what fields the returned info contains, or whether this respects job filters. The bare Args block plus a single sentence is minimal for the informational value an agent would need to correctly invoke this among many jenkins_* 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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. The description lists 'job_name: Full job name' and 'session_name: Jenkins session to use' in an Args block, which provides minimal meaning. 'Full job name' is somewhat helpful (indicating possibly nested paths), but 'session to use' is vague - doesn't explain what a session is or how to specify or set it up.

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 'Get information about the last failed build of a job' which is a specific verb+resource+condition. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jenkins_get_last_build and jenkins_get_last_successful_build by specifying 'failed' builds. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these close siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There's no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The tool just states what it does without contextual usage guidance. Sibling tools like jenkins_get_build_info and jenkins_get_last_successful_build exist but no comparison is made.

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