jenkins_get_plugin_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 states it returns 'detailed information' but doesn't explain what fields are returned, whether the plugin must be installed (or fails if not), memory/permission requirements, or any other behavioral nuance. The description adds minimal context about edge cases or failure modes.

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?

Concise and efficiently formatted with the Args section clearly mapping to parameters. Two sentences of actual description plus parameter annotations. Minimal waste, though the docstring-style Args formatting is slightly redundant with the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value is documented structurally. The tool is relatively simple (2 params, one required). However, no annotations exist and the description doesn't explain query prerequisites like needing an active Jenkins connection (though jenkins_connect sibling suggests it), or failure behavior for non-installed plugins. Adequate but with gaps for a complete picture.

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 explain plugin_name with an example ('git', 'pipeline-model-definition') which is genuinely useful, and mentions session_name is the Jenkins session. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between the parameters, whether session_name defaults matter, or what a plugin short name is vs a full name. Partial compensation but incomplete.

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 the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific installed plugin, with an example clarifying the plugin_name format. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the close sibling jenkins_list_plugins, though the verb 'get detailed info about a specific installed plugin' vs 'list plugins' is reasonably self-evident distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this vs jenkins_list_plugins or jenkins_get_plugin_info alternatives. There's no mention of when this is appropriate, whether it requires an active connection first, or how it differs from list/install plugin operations. The context is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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