jenkins_get_node_info

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 state whether the operation is read-only (likely given the name), what the exact return structure is, whether session/auth requirements matter, or any side effects. For an info-query tool the risk is low, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 with a clean Args section and no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though it could benefit from a note about what 'detailed information' includes.

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?

Has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the essential purpose and the one non-obvious constraint (master node naming). Given there are no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it does a reasonably adequate job for a low-risk read tool, though it doesn't clarify the exact metadata returned or differentiate from sibling node tools.

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 does add meaningful guidance for node_name by noting the master node special values ('(built-in)' or '(master)'), which is genuinely useful. However, session_name receives no explanation beyond its name and default value, and there's no elaboration on how node_name semantics map to the underlying Jenkins API.

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 it gets detailed info about a specific Jenkins node/agent, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it could more strongly distinguish itself from sibling tools like jenkins_list_nodes (list all nodes), jenkins_enable_node/disable_node, and jenkins_get_node_log, since it only vaguely says 'detailed information' without specifying what information is returned.

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 ('get detailed info about a specific node') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs sibling tools like list_nodes or get_node_log. The schema hint about the master node ('(built-in)' or '(master)') is useful but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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