jenkins_get_node_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing beyond the literal action: no mention of what the log contains, how recent it is, whether it requires an active agent, rate limits, truncation behavior, or format of the output. For a read tool this is a significant gap since the agent can't anticipate what kind of content or volume to expect.

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 and gets to the point quickly with a clear one-line purpose statement followed by a minimal Args list. There is no wasted prose. However, the Args section largely duplicates what the input schema already provides, so those lines add limited value.

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?

There is an output schema which helps somewhat with return value expectations. But the tool is a node-log retrieval operation with no annotations and minimal description. Given the sibling ecosystem (many get_* tools with similar shape), the description does not explain what distinguishes a node log from a build log, whether the log covers the full node lifecycle, or how output is structured. For an agent to invoke this correctly and interpret results, more context is needed.

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 (node_name and session_name) with brief one-word labels, but adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema's own names and types. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, so some credit is earned, but the description provides no format constraints, defaults rationale, or behavioral nuance.

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 clearly states 'Get the log output from a Jenkins node/agent' with a specific verb (get) and resource (log from a node). It distinguishes reasonably from sibling tools like jenkins_get_build_log by targeting nodes rather than builds. However, it doesn't strongly differentiate from sibling tools like jenkins_get_node_info or jenkins_list_nodes in terms of scope.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't explain the relationship to jenkins_get_build_log (build log vs node log), when node logs are useful (e.g., build log captures the console, node log captures the agent's own output), or any prerequisites like needing a connected session.

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