jenkins_get_last_successful_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. Yet it says nothing about what happens if there is no successful build (does it error? return null?), whether authentication is required, or what the response structure looks like. For a read operation this is a moderate gap, particularly the failure-case behavior which is often relevant.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. It's compact at roughly three short sentences. One could argue it's slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but for what it does say, it's efficient and waste-free.

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?

While there is an output schema present (which covers return-value explanation), the tool's key behavioral aspect - what happens when no successful build exists - is entirely undocumented. This is a common and important edge case for 'last successful build' tools. The description also lacks any detail on session handling or error conditions, making it incomplete for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage.

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') but only with docstring-style notes that add very little meaning beyond the schema itself - job_name being 'Full' and session_name being a 'Jenkins session' are minimal elaborations. No guidance on format, how to obtain the session name, or the default value's significance.

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 successful build of a job - a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from siblings like jenkins_get_last_build, jenkins_get_last_failed_build, jenkins_get_build_info through the 'successful' qualifier. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the meaning is specific and unambiguous.

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 this is for retrieving the most recent successful build of a job, which gives context for when to use it (when you want the last green build). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like jenkins_get_last_failed_build or jenkins_get_build_info. The context is clear enough but no exclusions are given.

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